Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill.

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

STATE RAILWAYS (MATERIAL).

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the value of orders for locomotives and any other railway material purchased for Indian railways and placed in continental countries for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The value of the orders for railway material placed in continental countries for Indian State-owned railways during the calendar year 1935 was about £1,000,000.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the prices submitted by British firms compared with those of continental firms?

Mr. BUTLER: In these cases they were not so favourable, but I cannot give the hon. Member exact details.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and publish the results later on?

TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE.

Captain SHAW: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to business houses in this country through the delay which takes place in the transmission of cablegrams when they pass into the hands of the Indian Government telegraphic service; and whether he

will make representations to the Indian Government with a view to getting these delays obviated?

Mr. BUTLER: If my hon. Friend will give me some particulars of cases in which delays have occurred, I will have inquiry made.

SMALLPOX.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information with regard to smallpox outbreaks in India; and whether the outbreaks this year have been heavier than is usual at this period?

Mr. BUTLER: There has recently been an acute epidemic of smallpox in Bengal. Complete up-to-date figures for the Province as a whole are not yet available, but in Calcutta 1,558 deaths from smallpox have occurred this year up to 7th March. This is greater than the average of recent years, but the disease comes in waves at irregular intervals.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of this increased rate of smallpox, could the hon. Gentleman arrange for a greater proportion of the taxes to be spent on the native quarters? So little is being done for them and so much for the others.

Mr. BUTLER: The local government have full responsibility in this matter, and I think they are to be relied upon to take all possible precautions, including that to which the hon. Lady refers.

"INDIA IN 1933–34."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a passage in "India in 1933–34," a publication that purports to have the Minister's general approval, that Mr. Gandhi's untouchability campaign was inspired by motives other than a purely altruistic desire to remove social disabilities; and, if so, will he take steps to discourage controversial statements about Indian political leaders in publications of this nature?

Mr. BUTLER: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Durham, East (Mr. Ritson) on 16th March.

SCHOOL-CHILDREN (ARRIVAL OF TROOPS).

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a letter was addressed by the divisional commissioner of Meerut recently to chairmen of municipal authorities, asking them to inform their educational staff that school-children should be afforded the opportunity of seeing the troops when they arrive in a locality; and whether this letter had the sanction of the Government?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information other than is contained in a reply given to a similar question in the Legislative Assembly on 5th February last, of which I will send him a copy.

COLLIERY ACCIDENT (LOYABAD).

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India particulars of the disaster in the Loyabad coalfield, Maria, in February last?

Mr. BUTLER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 20th February.

POLICE SEARCHES.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether anything incriminating was found as a result of the search by the police of rooms in colleges and university hostels in Benares in February last?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the houses of Dr. Chiranji Lal and about 20 others were entered and searched by the United Provinces criminal investigation department; whether a warrant was issued for such search; how long the search lasted; and what the police found as a result of the search?

Mr. BUTLER: As I stated in answer to the hon. Member for the Clayton division of Manchester (Mr. Jagger) on 9th March, I am aware from Press reports that extensive searches were carried out by the United Provinces police early in February, and I am awaiting official information in regard to the matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman be willing to publish all those documents which he regards as

incriminating after the search has been completed?

Mr. BUTLER: I should prefer to await the official information for which I have asked.

Mr. SUBHAS BOSE.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Subhas C. Bose has been notified by His Majesty's British consul at Vienna that if lie returns to India he will not retain his liberty; and whether this notification was on the instructions of his Department?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir, this notification was given at my Noble Friend's request.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether this Gentleman is not to be allowed to return to his native country without being arrested and, seeing that he was first arrested four years ago, do the Government intend to keep him under control indefinitely without trying him for any given offence?

Mr. BUTLER: With regard to the first part of the question, I have already said that notification has been made to him that he cannot expect to remain at liberty if he returns to India. The second part of the question goes beyond the original question, and I should require notice of it.

Mr. MAXTON: Will there be any limit to the continued persecution of this eminent citizen of India?

Mr. BUTLER: I have already said that that is wider than the original question and had better be put on the Paper.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what objections the Government have to Mr. Bose, and what is the charge against him? Has it yet been formulated?

Mr. BUTLER: I think Mr. Bose is aware of the reasons which led to his incarceration in India in the first instance. He was allowed to go away for medical reasons.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that no charge has been preferred against him? Why do you not try him and sentence him if he has done anything?

UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS.

Mr. DAGGAR (for Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS): asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) under what circumstances an order issued by a local government or official declaring an association to be an unlawful body is subject to review and revision;
(2) under what authority associations may be declared unlawful in India by an order of a local government or any official in its behalf; how many such orders have been issued on the basis of evidence supplied by informers; and whether those against whom such action is taken have the right or opportunity to appeal against such an order;
(3) under what authority the Government of India, local governments, district and minor officials have the power to declare associations unlawful, without reference to the courts, and without any judicial process or public inquiry; and whether, after an association is so declared, membership of it becomes an offence punishable with imprisonment?

Mr. BUTLER: The Government of India and local governments, but not officials of those Governments, have power to issue notifications declaring associations unlawful under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by Act No. 23 of 1932. I have no information as to the origin of the evidence on which action has been taken in each particular case. There is no provision in the Act for appeals against such notifications, but the authorities concerned would no doubt be prepared to consider any representations made to them. Membership of an unlawful association is punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Sir ERIC TEICHMANN'S JOURNEY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report from Sir Eric Teichmann on his recent journey through North China and Sinkiang?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.

Sir A. KNOX: When will this report be published?

Mr. EDEN: Detailed consideration of the report is awaiting Sir Eric's arrival in this country, and, of course, the question of publication will turn on that detailed consideration.

SINKIANG.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has accurate information as to the activities in the Chinese Province of Sinkiang of persons in the employment of the Government of Soviet Russia; whether, and, if so, how many, Soviet advisers have been appointed to assist the governing authorities in Sinkiang; and whether anything in known of a proposal to construct a branch railway from the Trans-Siberian Railway to Sinkiang?

Mr. EDEN: As stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wirral (Captain Graham), on 12th February, there are Soviet Consuls-General at Kashgar and Urumchi and Soviet trade agencies at Kashgar, Urumchi and Aksu. To these must be added, according to my latest information, further trade agencies at Chuguchak, Kuldja, Shikho and Altai. I am not aware how many advisers to the Sinkiang authorities are Soviet citizens. I have no information as regards the last part of the question.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible to obtain from our representatives in Kashgar definite information as to whether there are Soviet political advisers in Sinkiang?

Mr. EDEN: I think Sir Eric Teichmann may be able to give some information on that subject.

GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make about the European situation?

Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement regarding the situation arising from the German violation of the demilitarised zone?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. In the course of my conversations with Herr von Ribbentrop, I emphasised that the contents of the documents which had been communicated to him were in the nature of proposals. I made it clear that His Majesty's Government hoped that the German Government would be in a position to accept them, but that in any event his Majesty's Government felt that the German Government should assist them in their task by making some constructive contribution to improve the situation. On my instructions His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin used similar language in an interview which he had with the German Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday.

Mr. DALTON: Has any reply yet been received from the German Government?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. ADAMS: Will my right hon. Friend continue to convey to our friends in France and Belgium our appreciation of their fortitude and patience in the present circumstances of danger and anxiety?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether, before coming to any agreement with Germany, he will make the unilateral breaking of treaties, without warning, a specific point of protest and consider what guarantees may be secured from Germany so that this advantage, which is claimed by net other country, may not be made use of again?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the maintenance of the principle of the sanctity of treaties is a main objective of His Majesty's Government.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SILVERMAN: asked the Minister of Pensions how many patients remain upon the lists of the Ministry of Pensions hospitals in connection with infirmities of whatever nature acquired during the years 1914–18?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The number of ex-service men who have had in-patient treatment, excluding treatment in public mental

hospitals, during the 12 months to date is approximately 9,000. The hon. Member will appreciate that many cases are under treatment for short periods only and the number of in-patients on any one day is about 2,400.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Could the Minister tell the House what are the numbers of patients who, while not being in-patients now, remain upon the hospital lists with the right to re-enter the hospitals at any time they may need treatment? My question did not refer to the number of inmates.

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me afterwards, and let me know exactly what it is he wants.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the decision not to introduce legislation to abolish the seven years' limit, in view of the fact that the present system of dealing with cases of hardships makes no provision for payment of arrears of pensions in cases where the Ministry of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, has agreed that pension grants should be made?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir, legislation is unnecessary for the object in view. An award of pension in cases of late claim for disablement is ordinarily made as from the date on which the claim is established and arrears are paid accordingly.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister not aware that there have been many injustices and that when pensions are being granted, nothing is being paid for the back period?

Mr. HUDSON: The practice has always been to pay the claim as from the date on which it is established.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister sure of that? Is it not the ease that arrears have been paid in very many cases?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member has any particular case in view, perhaps he will let me have particulars, and I shall be glad to go into it.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider introducing legislation to confer power upon local authorities to set up pension


committees consisting of members of the authority, to which committee ex-service men and other dependants may appeal for reconsideration of their claim to pension and to grant or increase pensions, in all cases where they consider it desirable, to avoid injustice to present sufferers from the great War?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. Under existing legislation any person deeming himself aggrieved by a decision of the Ministry can always make a complaint to his local War Pensions Committee, which includes representatives of local authorities. I have every reason to believe that this system is working satisfactorily.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister not considering the setting up of such committees as courts of appeal?

Mr. HUDSON: I have just informed the hon. Gentleman that the present system. is working satisfactorily.

GREAT BRITAIN (RUSSIAN TOURISTS).

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will consider setting up a tourist agency in Moscow for the purpose of attracting Russian workers to take their holidays in this country; and whether he will arrange for special facilities to be given to such tourists so that they may see the show-places in this country in the same way that the Russian Intourist Agency arranges such trips to demonstrate the attractions of Russia?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion before the Executive Committee of the Travel and Industrial Development Association. As regards the second part of the question, no special facilities are required to see the show places of this country which, in general, are open for all to see.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: If there are any "show places" in this land for Russians, will the hon. Gentleman see that they are shown the distressed areas?

Sir A. KNOX: Would it be possible to appoint guides from the Conservative Central Office, so as to prevent these people seeing anything?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SURPLUS FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make available to Members of the House in the Library a copy of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934, as approved by the Dail in the Irish Free State; what particulars he has available as to the working of the scheme under that Act whereby the 60,000 head of fat cattle said to be surplus to ordinary market requirements have been acquired by the State and supplied gratis or at greatly reduced prices per pound to persons in receipt of public assistance or unemployment relief; and whether, in view of the success of this experiment, he will consider arrangements for the similar disposal of food and fish surplus to ordinary requirements to the needy consumers of this country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I have arranged for copies of the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934, and the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep (Amendment) Act, 1935, to be made available to Members in the Library. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the Debates on these measures in the Free State Dail on 2nd, 8th, 9th, 22nd and 23rd August, 1934, and on 18th and 31st July, 1935. Copies of the relevant OFFICIAL RIIPORTS are already filed in the Library, but I am sending copies to the right hon. Member for his perusal. In reply to the last part of the question, I would ask him to await the reply which is being given to his later question by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Prime Minister whether he has been informed of the efficacy of recent experiments in this country and in Ireland in subsidising needy consumers so that they have been enabled to eat alleged surpluses of meat, milk, and potatoes off the market; and whether, in view of the savings in public health expenditure, the manifest benefits to agriculture, and the social and economic advantages to the nation of this method of distributing abundance, he will instruct the appropriate Ministers and Departments to prepare further schemes of similar purport?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the experiments referred to. The Government are already participating in the supply of cheap milk for school children under the Milk Act, 1934, and further provision for this service has recently been made, in the Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Act. The question whether the Government should co-operate in further schemes for increasing milk consumption will be carefully considered as part of the general review of milk policy which will take place when the report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission is available. A scheme for the disposal of surplus potatoes at cheap rates to the unemployed was carried out by the Potato Marketing Board at Bishop Auckland last year. The Board do not, I understand, intend to conduct a further experiment this season, when the home crop is in short supply. In the case of milk and potatoes, these schemes have been operated by or through organisations of producers. The practicability of comparable action with regard to meat must largely depend on developments in the organisation of livestock and meat marketing.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last sentence in my question, namely, whether he will instruct the appropriate Ministers to prepare further schemes of similar purport?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the suggestion underlying the question is a good one, and that some part of unemployment benefit should be paid in kind so far as meat is concerned, thereby securing employment and helping agriculture?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to do with my question?

The PRIME MINISTER: These matters are always under consideration, and there is no need for me to give special instructions.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But in view of the recent reports by nutrition experts in this country, the urgency of the problem, and the admitted success of recent experiments, will not the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the appropriate

Ministers to have further schemes prepared?

The PRIME, MINISTER: We are examining these reports with the utmost care as they come in, and we are always dealing with these questions, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the peculiar circumstances in Ireland do not exist in this country regarding one portion of this question.

POTATOES (MARKETING).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Potato Marketing Board has been awarded a judgment of £50 against a Kent farmer in respect of his excess acreage for 1934; how many times the Potato Marketing Board have taken action against farmers on account of cultivating excess acreage of potatoes; and whether, in view of the fact that potatoes are sold retail in London at per pound, he will discourage further action by the Potato Marketing Board likely to restrict production?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the judgment referred to. I am informed by the Potato Marketing Board that they have taken action to recover unpaid excess acreage levies in 260 cases since the inception of the scheme in December, 1933. As to the last part of the question, the area planted with potatoes in 1935 allows scope for an increase of 22 per cent. in the total acreage which may be planted without any excess acreage levy, though individual producers who are now growing potatoes up to their basic maximum would be liable if they desired to increase their acreage.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of potatoes and the fact that the demand is at present bigger than the supply; and will he advise the farmers in Lincolnshire to unload some of their potatoes on the market?

Mr. ELLIOT: The unloading just now, I am advised, is very heavy.

DRAINAGE (ROTHR VALLEY).

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that much valuable land is out of cultivation and agricultural uses in the Rother Valley, in the areas of Killa-


marsh, Beighton Catcliffe, Canklow, and Whiston, consequent upon the flooding of the River Rother, any scheme of land drainage for that area is contemplated by the Ouse Catchment Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: The scheme for improving the drainage system of the River Don and its tributaries which is being carried out by the catchment board includes provision for the improvement of the River Rother between Rotherham and Chesterfield, but these latter works depend to some extent upon the progress of the work on the Lower Don.

Mr. DUNN: In view of the fact that the land has been out of cultivation for a half century and that there are families in that area who have not worked since 1921, will the Minister take steps to expedite the scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: It depends to some extent on the drainage works on the Lower Don. It is very important to get the out-fall first.

Mr. DUNN: If it is dependent upon that, will it not be a further half century before the work is done?

Mr. PALING: Is any consideration being given to the difficulties which have arisen between the parties responsible for the work on the Lower Don?

EGGS (IMPORT).

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to the unprecedented increase in the import of eggs in the shell from certain foreign countries during the months of January and February last, as compared with the corresponding months of 1935, the volume of imports showing increases, in the case of Denmark, of 53.5 per cent., Poland 406.72 per cent., Belgium 522.54 per cent., and other foreign countries 426.78 per cent.; and whether he contemplates immediate action to safeguard the poultry-keepers of this country from this destructive competition?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the recent increases in imports of foreign eggs in shell. The question whether further assistance should be accorded to the home industry when circumstances permit is at present under consideration.

Sir P. HANNON: In view of the importance of the industry to the masses of the people, will the Minister undertake that in future oversea trade agreements, consideration will be given to this matter and every possible protection afforded to the industry?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the National Poultry Council complied with the conditions under the Marketing Act, 1033, which enable the Minister to take steps in the direction indicated?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the Minister bear in mind the recent report of Sir John Orr which shows under-nourishment among the population; and will he do all he can to prevent any artificial increase in the price of foodstuffs?

Mr. ELLIOT: All these matters will be kept in mind; but it is important that foodstuffs should be produced at home if only from the point of view of freshness—a point which has also been brought out strongly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider installing cabinets to all telephone kiosks with sound-proof doors so as to enable telephone callers to conduct private conversations without being overheard; and whether he can state the number of rural post offices in which no telephone cabinets are installed, either inside or outside?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): Many public telephones in rural post offices are not enclosed in silence cabinets, and I am considering the transference of these telephones as practicable to kiosks outside the post offices where they will be accessible when the offices are closed. About 600 rural post offices have no public telephones; but in these cases kiosks are being provided this year under the Jubilee concession.

Mr. DAY: Will the kiosks be soundproof?

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is no reduction of facilities in the areas where this change is being made?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: In reply to the first question, we shall certainly see that the kiosks are soundproof. In reply to the second, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our endeavour is to increase, and not decrease, the available facilities.

Mr. DAY: What will be the cost of these kiosks?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I would require notice of a question of that magnitude.

STAMPS (NEW ISSUE).

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects the new issue of postage stamps will be made showing His Majesty King Edward VIII; and whether he intends there shall be any substantial difference in design from those issued during former reigns?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I regret that I am not yet able to answer either of my hon. Friend's questions.

FACILITIES, NORTH-EASTERN DISTRICT.

Dr. LEACH (for Mr. MAGNAY): asked the Postmaster-General whether the postal, telegraph and telephone facilities available to the public have been in any way affected in the north-eastern district of England, in view of the fact that the new regional organisation of the Post Office has been brought into operation in that district; and is any alteration involved in the status of the postmaster-surveyor of Newcastle in regard to the city of Newcastle itself?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The regional organisation which has been experimentally introduced in the north-eastern district of England has not in any way affected the facilities offered to the public, whether postal, telegraph or telephone. It is, however, confidently hoped that the new organisation will result in a gradual improvement in those facilities. No alteration is intended, for the time being, at any rate, in the status of the postmaster-surveyor of Newcastle in regard to the city of Newcastle itself, save that the telephone manager at Newcastle, who was previously subordinate to him, has been given independent standing.

BROADCASTING (GRAND OPERA).

Mr. MABANE: asked the Postmaster-General (1) on how many

occasions grand opera has been presented at Covent Garden; and on how many occasions it has been presented at suitable theatres in the provinces under the supplemental agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation of 11th June, 1931;
(2) whether it is proposed to renew the supplemental agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation which provides for the payment of £17,00 a year to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the presentation of grand opera at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, and at suitable theatres in the provinces, and which expired at the end of 1935?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The opera subsidy was discontinued at the end of 1932 and Parliament has not since been asked to vote the necessary funds. If, in these circumstances, my hon. Friend still desires to know how often grand opera was presented while the British Broadcasting Corporation was in receipt of the subsidy under the supplemental agreement, I will ask the Corporation to send him the necessary information.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WINDOW CLEANING).

Mr. J. HALL: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is made a condition of Government contracts entered into by his Department that window-cleaning undertakings shall be covered by insurance against workmen's compensation and third party risks?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby- Gore): In the smaller contracts insurance against accidents under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts is required, but there is no contract requirement of insurance against third party risks.

Mr. HALL: In the interests of the workers and for their protection, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in regard to the larger offices?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that in every case the larger firms who undertake this work ire covered, and that there is no likelihood of their defaulting on their legal liabilities.

Mr. THORNE: Why should not the right hon. Gentleman's Department have all this window-cleaning work under their own direction and control?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That would involve the window cleaning in offices in many towns and cities up and down the country.

INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government propose to implement their Election pledge to introduce a scheme for voluntary insurance of black-coated workers?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. In their Election manifesto the Government undertook to introduce a scheme of voluntary pensions insurance for persons such as shopkeepers, clerks and other black-coated workers, outside the existing scheme whose incomes did not exceed a certain limit and the Government will of course implement that pledge. I would also refer my hon. Friend to a statement I made on the subject in this House on 10th December last.

Mr. PERKINS: When may we expect some legislation

Sir K. WOOD: I could not say. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

IRISH FREE STATE MIGRANTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Southern Irish immigrants who have recently entered Great Britain with a view to obtaining employment; what action he proposes to take to prevent unemployment being thereby caused to British workers; and what, if any, steps are being taken to prevent such immigrants from becoming a charge on national funds in the event of their losing their employment while in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No precise figures are available with regard to the first part of the question. With regard to the second and third parts, I would remind my hon. Friend that there is no power to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are there any reciprocal privileges to workers of British origin in the Irish Free State; and is it not desirable that there should be such reciprocal privileges or else that this matter should be dealt with having regard to the number of British workers put out of employment in this way?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think it is a question of reciprocal privileges. There is no power to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom, and no special arrangements are being made with respect to this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Are we to understand that power is being taken to deport Irish immigrants who have got on to public assistance in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, I have not said that.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money paid by the Unemployment Fund to the National Council of Social Service; and the administrative costs per year of the National Council of Social Service?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No payments out of the Unemployment Fund are made to the National Council of Social Service. Particulars of the administrative costs of the council are published in the council's annual reports. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the latest report up to 31st March, 1935.

Mr. MABANE: Do I understand that DO Government money is paid to the National Council of Social Service?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Government money is paid to the National Council of Social Service, and it appears in the Ministry of Labour's Estimates.

SPECIAL AREAS (EXPENDITURE AND COMMITMENTS).

Mr. 'BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can separate the total amount of £3,443,000 stated by the Commissioner of the Distressed Areas in his last report as expenditure and commitments, and state how much is expenditure and how much commitments?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Approximately £330,000 of the £3,443,000 referred


to relates to expenditure by the Commissioner and the balance to commitments. As the Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales) explained in his report, actual expenditure on schemes must necessarily be considerably in arrear of commitments in the early stages of the work.

INSURANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Minister of Labour when he will be in a position to introduce his proposals dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Regulations under Part II of the 1934 Act?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really intend to be in a position ever to answer this question?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Yes, Sir.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some indication when, so that we may put down another question?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There is nothing to prevent hon. Members putting down questions whenever they wish.

MANBY AERODROME (IRISH WORKERS).

Lieut.-Colonel H EN EAG E: asked the Minister of Labour how many labourers and how many foremen employed at the aerodrome at Manby are from Southern Ireland, and why local workmen are not employed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that four foremen and 27 unskilled workpeople employed in connection with this aerodrome are Irish, but I do not know whether they come from Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland. In all, 299 men are at present employed on the work, most of whom are local men.

Mr. MARKLEW: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman received a report from the representative of his Department who was down there on Friday, and if he has not received that report, or if he has, has he any information to confirm the suggestion that the failure to employ local labour on this contract is very largely

due to the contractors' anxiety to let sleeping huts on the premises and to secure tenants for the canteen which they also supply; and will he also consult his colleague, the Minister of Transport, who, I understand, is also very largely responsible for the employment of Irish labourers?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think the hon. Member has given me rather a plateful to answer in reply to a supplementary question.

CREAM SEPARATORS (FRENCH QUOTA).

Mr. PERKINS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Swedish manufacturers of cream separators are obtaining preferential treatment under the French quota system over British manufacturers; and why the Government are not taking more drastic action to see least British manufacturers are put on at least an equal footing with the Swedish manufacturers?

Dr. BURGIN: I am informed that the United Kingdom and Swedish shares of the French quota for cream separators are in proportion to the imports into France from these countries during the period on which the quota is now based. The relative size of these shares is dependent on the basic period selected. An effort is, however, being made to obtain an increase in the United Kingdom allocation.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is this in conformity with the usual clauses in these international treaties?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

PALESTINE (WORKERS' CONDITIONS, JAFFA).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a copy of the report concerning wages and conditions of workers at the port of Jaffa; and, if so, has he any statement to make on the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine for information on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE DEPOT, CROMBIE.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm given the contract for the construction of the underground storage depot at Crombie, West Fife, is paying wages at the rate of 11½d. per hour; that there is also complaint of excessive overtime for which proper remuneration is not given; and will he inquire into conditions at this undertaking and ensure that the generally recognised rate for such work is paid and that overtime is reduced to a minimum?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The contractors have paid wages at the rate of one shilling per hour since 27th February. The hours worked are those provided for in the Working Rule Agreement of the Civil Engineering Construction Conciliation Board for Great Britain for men engaged on tunnels, double-shift work. The only departure is that one half-hour overtime has been worked by 30 surface men to obviate waiting for an omnibus after ceasing work: the remuneration for this is being investigated, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member.

CRIPPLED CHILDREN.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that very little provision is made for the care and training of crippled children after they leave school; and whether he proposes to take any action to have provisions which deal with blind children extended to crippled children?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): It is the duty of the education authorities to make provision for physically defective children up to 16 years of age, and the number so being educated during the year ended 31st July, 1936, was about 6,100. But no statistics are available in the Scottish Education Department as to the work done for these children beyond that age by voluntary societies. My right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member, but I am sure he will realise that important questions of policy are involved.

DUKE-STREET PRISON.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how

many criminals were detained in the Duke-street gaol, in Glasgow, during 1925, and how many during 1935?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: During 1925 the number of persons received into custody at Duke-street Prison was 5,620, of whom 4,112 were under sentence on reception. The corresponding figures for 1935 were 1,649 and 1,472 respectively.

MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINA TION OF DEFENCE.

Mr. EDE: asked the Prime Minister when the Supplementary Estimate for the salary and expenses of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will be submitted for consideration; and whether it will be taken at a time of day allowing full discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed that the salary and expenses of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence shall be borne on the Vote for the Treasury, and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented at an early date in the next financial year; the usual opportunities for discussion will be available.

Mr. EDE: Will it cover the period up to the end of this financial year?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly. As the hon. Member knows, the financial year begins in about a week or 10 days from now, and the Estimate cannot be introduced before that. It will then be introduced, and should there be any overlapping between the two years, we will, of course, provide for it.

Sir P. HARRIS: Will this new post require any legal or statutory authority?

The PRIME MINISTER: Will the hon. Member kindly put that question down?

NAVAL TREATY.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the Prime Minister when the Government propose to sign a naval treaty as a result of the London Naval Conference; whether he will state the terms of the treaty to this House before it is signed; and whether an early day will be arranged for this House to discuss the treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to sign the Naval Treaty on Wednesday of this week. I am unable


to communicate the terms of the Treaty to the House before it is signed, but the text will be published and a White Paper issued to the House within a few hours of signature. If there is a general desire for a debate, the Government will of course give careful consideration to such representations.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is treating the House with a good deal of disrespect to sign an important treaty of this kind without the terms being indicated beforehand to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find many precedents.

Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman attach any importance or value to this Treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, a great deal.

HOUSING (GRANTS).

Mr. BOULTON: asked the Minister of Health the total amount of grants paid to the Sheffield Corporation for the years 1933, 1934, and 1935, under the Housing and Slum Clearance Acts; and the total for the whole county for the same periods?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total amounts of Exchequer grants paid under the Housing Acts to the Corporation of Sheffield in each of the years ended the 31st March, 1933, 1934 arid 1935, were £168,000, £197,122, and £208,226 respectively. The total amounts paid in each of the three years in respect of housing schemes in England and Wales were £13,349,758, £13,432,626 and £13,758,256 respectively.

NEWFOUNDLAND (RANGER FORCE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the newly formed force of Rangers in Newfoundland; and whether they are being organised on

lines similar to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): Yes, Sir. Steps were taken last year for the formation in Newfoundland of a Ranger Force modelled on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is intended that the Force, which will consist of two officers and 50 non-commissioned officers and men, should operate throughout Newfoundland, excluding the Avalon Peninsula and the towns of Grand Falls and Corner Brook, and in Labrador, and its duties will include, in addition to police work, game protection and fire control and, in certain areas, the distribution of able-bodied relief and the collection of Customs revenue. So far, a nucleus of the Force has been recruited and is being trained with the assistance of a staff sergeant whose services have been lent by the Canadian Government.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister aware that reports are already being circulated that this body is being used for the purpose of suppressing the opposition of the Newfoundlanders to the treatment they are getting following the suppression of their Parliament?

Mr. MAXTON: Is the Force being recruited from Newfoundland or from other sources?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is being recruited locally in Newfoundland.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what activities previously performed by the Empire Marketing Board have since its abolition been discontinued?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Broadly speaking, the activities of the late Empire Marketing Board which were discontinued were those relating to publicity and market promotion in this country on behalf of Empire products. This does not of course mean that such activities ceased altogether, since many of the Governments concerned are themselves active in these directions on their own behalf.

Mr. SANDYS: Does not my Noble Friend consider it regrettable that as a result of the abolition of the Empire Marketing Board important functions of


this kind are not being performed except to a very much less degree?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Whenever the Dominion Government concerned thinks they are important they are being performed.

Mr. MABANE: Can the Noble Lord say to what use the various sites for posters are being put?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: My hon. Friend had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which Dominion Governments expressed the wish that the Empire Marketing Board should be abolished; and what were the reasons given?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued to the Press on 8th August, 1933, of which I have already sent him a copy. It will be seen from that statement that all the Dominion Governments accepted generally the recommendations made by the Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the report of the committee itself (Cmd. 4335).

Sir P. HANNON: In view of the great value that the Empire Marketing Board was to inter-Imperial trade, do His Majesty's Government contemplate taking into consideration the possibility of its re-establishment?

Mr. LUNN: In view of the fact that the Empire Marketing Board was recognised as the most helpful organisation we have ever had for the Dominions and Colonies, will the Noble Lord give the real reason it was discontinued, namely, because the Dominions did not and would not agree to contribute a penny to it?

Mr. MAXTON: And because we were too mean to pay for it.

Mr. SANDYS: Does my Noble Friend accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn)?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: That is approximately the case. As my right hon. Friend told the House a few days ago, the reason it was discontinued was that the majority of Dominions expressed

the view that they would not be getting value for the money spent.

Mr. DAY: How much was contributed towards the expenses?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOLS (AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the DUCHESS OF ATHOLL:
53. To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the National Union of Teachers, in their annual report for 1935, stated that they had written to all local education authorities urging them to refuse to co-operate with the Home Office in carrying out the precautions against air raids advocated in the official circular of July, 1935; that it was further stated that a number of local authorities adopted this resolution or a similar point of view; and what action does he propose to take to prevent teachers, whose salaries are paid from public funds, making further efforts to prevent local authorities from co-operating with the Government in the interests of national safety?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The organisation mentioned in this question should be the National Union of Women Teachers.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The Noble Lady has been misinformed as to the facts. The action to which she refers was taken by the National Union of Women Teachers, an organisation which represents only a small minority of the teaching profession, and which has no connection with the National Union of Teachers. While I deplore that an association of teachers should have thought fit to take such ill-advised action on a matter outside their professional competence, the Noble Lady will appreciate that my Department can take official notice of views expressed by teachers only in so far as such views are expressed in school. At the same time the fact that the National Union of Women Teachers have acted in this manner cannot fail to affect the weight which I should attach to any opinions that they may wish to express on other matters.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in view of the fact that civil servants are under an obligation not to engage in any political activities, the same restriction might well apply to teachers, whose salaries are


derived from public funds, in view of the great importance of their responsibilities?

Mr. STANLEY: The Noble Lady has raised a rather wider question. I do not think that she would really back up the suggestion that teachers in their private capacities should not indulge in political activities. A large number of teachers in my constituency indulge in political activities on very well-advised courses.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to this question at the earliest opportunity?

PRACTICAL AND PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Miss WARD: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the urgent desirability of making adequate provision for the teaching of practical handwork, cooking, sewing and physical training, he will consider setting up a committee to consider how far the present facilities supply the need?

Mr. STANLEY: I am fully alive to the importance of an adequate supply of teachers of the subjects mentioned by my hon. Friend. The matter is one which will clearly call for fresh consideration when the Education Bill now before Parliament is passed, and I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion of a committee.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that working-class girls and women are already acquainted with these subjects?

Miss WARD: Did my right hon. Friend say "lack of teachers" or "adequate supply of teachers"?

Mr. STANLEY: Adequate supply.

Miss WARD: That was not really the point I had in mind. The question was as to facilities for training centres and classes and an opportunity for children to attend them.

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps if my hon. Friend will have a word with me, I can explain the position to her.

PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL, WARMSWORTH.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the dilapidated condition of the temporary school at

Warmsworth, near Doncaster; and, if so, can he state whether plans for a new school have been submitted by the West Riding, Yorkshire, education committee?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the local education authority for the West Riding have included the proposal for a new school at Warmsworth in the programme of work to be initiated during the year 1936–37. The plans have not yet been submitted to the board.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As this school has been a temporary school for the past 16 or 17 years, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the West Riding Education Committee to expedite its rebuilding?

Mr. STANLEY: The fact that it is included in their programme this year shows that they realise the urgency.

OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.

Mr. PARKER: asked the Secretary of State for War at whose instance pressure is being brought upon the university college of the south-west of England, Exeter, to create an officers' training corps, despite the overwhelming majority to the contrary at a recent general meeting of the guild of under-graduates?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not aware that any pressure is being put upon the University College of the South-West of England to create a contingent of the Officers Training Corps.

PRISON REFORM.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation connected with prison reform during this Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The importance of this subject is recognised but the crowded state of the legislative programme does not make it possible to propose legislation on this subject at present.

Mr. PERKINS: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is largely an agreed


Measure and would not, therefore, take up much time in passing through the House?

Mr. BENSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present archaic position is handicapping the reforming efforts of the Prison Commissioners themselves?

METROPOLITAN POLICE (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that when a member of the Metropolitan Police Force dies during the first five years of his service his widow is not entitled to a pension even though her husband had in his employment, previous to joining the force, paid regular contributions under the Widows', Orphans', and Contributory Pensions Act; whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to close this gap in security; and whether, pending such legislation, he will give instructions that all new recruits to the force shall have their special attention drawn to this matter and advised to become voluntary contributors under the existing Act?

Mr. LLOYD: All police forces have been excepted by the Minister of Health from compulsory insurance under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, on the ground that the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, are on the whole not less favourable: but it is true that one result is that an insured man joining the police may cease to be insured under the Act of 1925 before he has served for the five years necessary to qualify for the ordinary widow's pension benefit under the Act of 1921. This point has been noted for legislation should an opportunity occur. If he dies as a result of an injury on duty his widow will be entitled to a pension however short his service. It is the practice to inform all recruits to the Metropolitan Police of the position, but few of those who are insured persons choose to continue as voluntary contributors. It must be remembered that all recruits to the Metropolitan Police are single men: that nowadays almost all remain single for at least four years: and that those joining under the short service scheme are kept in insurance under the health and pensions scheme by payments from the police fund.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In regard to the second part of the answer, in view of the fact that cases do occur will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to press forward legislation to remedy the difficulty?

Mr. LLOYD: I have said that the point has been noted for legislation.

BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any further statement to make about the anti-Semitic activities carried on in the East End of London by a body calling itself the British Union of Fascists and about the measures taken by the police to curb such disorders?

Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no further statement to make on this matter at present.

Mr. ADAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the performance in the Albert Hall last night included an anti-Jewish incitement, and may I ask whether his Department have any means of dealing with this kind of dangerous incitement? Well, if my hon. Friend's Department have not such powers, will they take them?

Mr. LLOYD: If my hon. Friend has a question to put about the Albert Hall meeting, perhaps he will put it on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman also extend his activities to his own supporters, who are busy raising a worse agitation against the Irish?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED (DECONTROLLED AREAS).

Mr. BOSSOM: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that traffic policemen are cautioning or arresting motorists who exceed 45 miles an hour in decontrolled areas in which there are a number of houses, although driving carefully in heavy cars; can he say whether this is upon the instruction of his Department; and if not, on whose authority were such instructions issued?

Mr. LLOYD: No instructions on this subject have been issued by my Department, but it is, of course, the duty of the


police to intervene in any case of what appears to be dangerous or potentially dangerous driving or where they consider it necessary to warn a driver to take greater care.

Mr. BOSSOM: If I bring cases to the attention of my hon. Friend will he investigate them?

Mr. LLOYD: Certainly.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is it not a fact that the police have no right to arrest anybody for exceeding 45 miles an hour in a place where there is no speed limit?

RAILWAY CHEAP TICKETS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the representations submitted by commercial travellers and other regular users of special term facilities on the railways as to the conditions imposed on holders of cheap tickets depriving them of any redress for injury to person or loss of property; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The main line railway companies inform my right hon. Friend that, excluding workmen, it has been decided that this limitation will in future apply only to passengers holding cheap day, half-day or evening tickets?

MOTOR CARS (BRAKES).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has made any representations to the motor car manufacturers respecting the elimination of brake squeak; whether any research work is being clone; and, if so, with what result?

Captain HUDSON: This subject is under investigation by the Research and Standardization Committee of the Institution of Automobile Engineers. I understand that there is a good prospect of useful results.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS (FIRE ENGINES).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the case in which Thomas Grainger, a driver of a London County Council fire engine, stationed at the Brixton fire station, was summoned for driving a fire engine past the traffic lights

at South Lambeth Road; and will he consider introducing regulations that will allow fire engines when answering a fire alarm to have the right of way?

Captain HUDSON: Fire engines normally take precedence by common consent, and with the assistance of the police, over all other traffic, and the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs who considered this matter stated that "No emergency would justify the driver of a fire engine in taking a risk of colliding with other vehicles proceeding in accordance with the signal indications." To make the alteration suggested might defeat its own object by causing an accident which would delay the fire engine in getting to the fire.

Mr. DAY: Do the police on point duty always give precedence to lire engines?

GERMANY (BRITISH LOANS).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what credits or loans have been given or made to the German Government or to German banks by His Majesty's Government, the Bank of England, or other English banks or banking houses in the last three years; and whether any such further credits are in negotiation or contemplation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): In December, 1934, the Bank of England granted a credit of £750,000 to the Reichsbank in order to expedite the liquidation of outstanding trade debts to United Kingdom creditors. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House at the time in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on 11th December, 1934, this credit was given with his full approval. It has since been repaid. No other credit or loan has been given or made to the German Government or to German banks by His Majesty's Government or the Bank of England in the last three years and no such credit or loan is in negotiation or contemplation. My right hon. Friend is not aware that other English banks or banking houses have in the last three years given or made or now have under contemplation, any such credits or loans apart from short-teem credits for commercial transactions.

Mr. DALTON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that His Majesty's Government would greatly ease many fears prevailing in this country at present if they would state that they would emphatically disapprove, and if necessary take steps to stop, any loans or credits to Germany at this time?

Mr. MORRISON: No doubt anything the hon. Member says will come to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has given its approval to the issue of any loans or credits to the German Government since January, 1931; what such loans amounted to; the date and amount of each loan or credit; and how much of each has been repaid to date?

Mr. MORRISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remainder does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (PROFITS).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation providing for taxation on the lines of the former Excess Profits Duty in order to ensure against excessive profits being made out of the increased expenditure on armaments?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12th March to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander).

Mr. SMITH: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that the pledges given by the Prime Minister will be carried out in the near future?

Mr. MORRISON: Any pledges given by my right hon. Friend will be carried out, but the hon. Member is asking about Excess Profits Duty, and we do not anticipate that the need for such a duty will arise.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. BENSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause a statement to be prepared showing for each of the financial years 1932 to 1933, 1933 to 1934, 1934 to 1935, and 1935 to

1936, the approximate total Income Tax, excluding Sur-tax, assessed in and for the year, and collected by 1st January, 1st February, 1st March, and 31st March in each year, respectively, for the City of London, for the whole of England, excluding the City of London, for the whole of Scotland, and for the whole of Northern Ireland?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to furnish this information. In the case of the Income Tax that is assessed locally, assessments may be made for any year within six years of the end of that year and accordingly the assessments made in a given year may include assessments for past years in addition to the main assessment for the current year. Moreover, he cannot undertake to analyse the receipts of the Income Tax on the lines indicated in the concluding part of the hon. Member's question.

FIXED TRUSTS (STAMP DUTY).

Captain SHAW: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in cases where sales to the public of fixed trust units and sub-units are neutralised through sales by the public of such units and sub-units, he can say what arrangements have been made for collecting the Stamp Duty which would be payable if the transactions had taken place in the constituent parts of the units; and whether he is aware that, in the difference between the buying and the selling prices quoted by these fixed trusts, the Stamp Duty payable by the purchaser is supposed in each case to be included?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly correct in suggesting that there is a question for consideration, and he is, of course, aware that a Departmental Committee has been appointed to inquire into fixed trusts in all their aspects. The answer to the first part of the question is that Stamp Duty, under the law, depends upon the nature of the instruments employed, and that arrangements exist for collecting duty on instruments that are at present liable to it. With regard to the second part, I have not, the necessary information to enable me to confirm his statement.

Mr. THURTLE: Pending the receipt. of this report, will the Government issue a warning to investors against putting their money into these fixed trusts?

OLYMPIC GAMES (FINANCE).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Olympic Games, which take place in Germany next August, will assist German finance to the extent of several million pounds in foreign currency, and that such currency is now being used to subsidise German armaments; and whether he will consider prohibiting the employment of British money in this way?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend has no power to prohibit persons in this country from expending money in Germany in connection with the Olympic Games.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. and learned Member's Department therefore use its good offices to suggest to the present Government in Germany that on the lines of their present election there should not be more than one competitor for each event?

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW (for Mr. DENMAN): asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the estimated amount of the relief to landowners, capitalised on a 3 per cent. basis, to be granted by the proposed legislation for dealing with tithe; and what is the estimated loss to the Church of England similarly calculated?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the answer is necessarily long and contains a number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Subject to the reservations set out below, the estimated amount of relief to tithe-payers, capitalised on a 3 per cent. basis, is approximately £24,904,000, of which £17,823,000 is in respect of tithe rentcharge owned by the Church of England Authorities, that is to say, Queen Anne's Bounty in trust for benefices and ecclesiastical corporations, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As regards the second part of the question, the present net income of the Church of England Authorities from tithe rentcharge is estimated at £2,126,468, while the future net income under the proposed legislation is estimated at £1,733,217, involving a loss of £393,251 in perpetuity,

which capitalised on a 3 per cent. basis would amount to £13,108,000. It will be noted that the loss to the Church, capitalised on a 3 per cent. basis, is less than the amount of the relief to the tithepayers, similarly capitalised, by £4,715,000. This difference is the net result of a number of factors, principally the reduction in the income received by rating authorities from rates on tithe rentcharge. Some of this reduction, however, would presumably have occurred in any case, assuming the assessable value of tithe rentcharge to be reduced, and more, eventually, as and when redemptions took place. If from the sum of £12,108,000 is deducted the £2 million capital grant which it is proposed to make to the Church Authorities in accordance with the Government's Statement of Policy, the net capital loss to the Church may be estimated at £11,108,000. It should be added that these figures are necessarily approximations, and are based on estimates adopted by the Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge for the purpose of their report. The figures do not take into account the effect of remissions of tithe rentcharge, present or proposed, or any variations in the amounts payable in regard to Income Tax as a result of the change of system. Moreover, no regard has been had to the fact that the accumulation by Queen Anne's Bounty at 3 per cent.—the rate of interest assumed in the question—of the present annual sinking fund payment of £4 10s. per £100 tithe rentcharge (par value) under the Tithe Act, 1925, would prove insufficient to produce at the end of the redemption period under that Act an income equivalent to the present net income derived from ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY ACCIDENT (BARDYKES).

Mr. A. CHAPMAN (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information regarding the circumstances of the accident which took place at 7.30 p.n. on Saturday, 21st March, 1936 at Bardykes Colliery (Summerlee Iron Company, Limited), situate between Blantyre and Cambuslang, and which resulted in the death of five men?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I regret to inform the House that five men and a pony were


buried and killed by a very large fall of roof in the loading gate of a conveyor run in the Splint Seam: two other men narrowly escaped. The work of recovering the bodies, which was difficult and dangerous, was completed at 11.30 yesterday morning, and the investigations of His Majesty's inspectors into the cause of the accident are now proceeding. The House will, I know, join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who lost their lives in these tragic circumstances.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the business for Tuesday?

The PRIME MINISTER: The subject of the Debate to-morrow will be the proposed new constitution for Palestine. The subject of the Debate on Thursday has not yet been settled. I will make a further statement about it on Wednesday.

Mr. ATTLEE: When shall we have an opportunity for a Debate on Foreign Affairs?

The PRIME MINISTER: I still am of the opinion which I expressed on Thursday. I am very anxious to have that Debate. I only safeguard myself in the event of something happening in the next day or two which may make the Debate, by general consent, undesirable. I still hope it will be possible.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Will the Prime Minister take note of the fact that facilities should be given for Private Members of the House to take part in the Debate?

The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is a matter for Mr. Speaker. So far as I am personally concerned, I would willingly cut my remarks short.

Mr. BEVAN: If only one day is to be afforded to this important matter, does the Prime Minister not realise that only the stars will be permitted to have any say at all, and that some of them take so long that none of us get a chance to speak?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House is well acquainted with my views. The point which the hon. Member raises is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Sir W. BRASS: Would the Prime Minister consider limiting to 15 minutes the speeches made between 7 o'clock and half-past nine in the evening?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not before?"]

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Prime Minister not honestly think that some of his own colleagues are a little unnecessarily loquacious?

Mr. MABANE: Do I understand that the only subject for to-morrow's Debate will be the new constitution for Palestine, or will it be possible to debate other subjects?

The PRIME MINISTER: It all depends on the allocation of time. There is perfect liberty for any subject to be raised, provided hon. Members are able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill): Sir Joseph McConnell and Mr. Ross Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Maxwell and Major Shaw.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Repayment of contribu tions in certain cases.)

(1) The Minister may by regulations under the principal Act make provision that if in the prescribed manner it is proved that any person has been employed in agriculture by the same employer for any consecutive period of two years commencing after the fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the employer and the employed person shall each be entitled, on making application in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time to have repaid to him the appropriate proportion of the agricultural contributions paid by him in respect of the employed person during such period of two years; so however that such regulations may provide in the case of agricultural contributions paid by an employer on behalf of a person employed by him and not recovered from that person for the repayment under this section being made to the employer instead of to that person.

(2) For the purposes of this section "appropriate proportion" means twenty-five per cent.

(3) The amount of the repayments made in any year in accordance with regulations made under this section shall be deducted—

(a) for the purpose of calculating contributions to be made out of moneys to be provided by Parliament under section twenty-one of the principal Act from the contributions paid in that year in respect of unemployed persons: and
(b) for the purpose of calculating the sums payable out of the Unemployment Fund in respect of the expenses of Government Departments under section sixty-two of the principal Act from the receipts or amount of income credited to the agricultural account of that fund.—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause is intended to fill up a gap in the Bill. In Clause 40, the Minister, in cases of six-monthly or 12-monthly hirings, may make a rebate at the end of the hiring. It is our intention to extend that to two years, in cases where a man has been in a single employment during that time. All Members

of the House want there to be more employment in agriculture, as one result of the Bill. One of our anxieties is that employers may, as a result of the introduction of this Measure, stand their men off when there is not a great deal of work to be done on the land. In order to prevent that, and to encourage the employer to keep his men on although the weather is not very clement for work on the land, we have put down this proposed new Clause. It is true that what the employer will gain by keeping a man on for the whole of the two years is not commensurate with the amount he would gain by standing him off for a, week, but, against that, I think it will be found throughout the whole of this country that employers have a certain pride in being able to say that they have not stood their men off, but have kept them in employment during the whole of these two years.
The Minister during the Committee stage was unable to accept a similar Clause to this, but I would ask him now to give the proposal further consideration and to accept our contention with reference to this important matter. It is not easy to say what the adoption of the Clause would cost, but my submission is that it would not cost the Minister anything, but, on the other hand, would be a saving to him, because, as a result, employers would refrain from standing off their employés. Therefore, I would urge the Clause upon the House, with this one additional word, that it does not order the Minister to give this rebate when there has been two years' continuous employment, but gives him a discretion, It merely says that if in the fulness of time he thinks this new rebate system would work well, he should have power to bring it about by regulation.

3.52 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Motion.
I would point out that, while provision is made in the Bill for rebates in respect of long-term hirings, there are many districts in the Midlands and in the South where there is no practice of long-term hiring in existence, but where, nevertheless, there are periods of continuous employment, which may appear to be, but are not quite, the same thing. The advantage of giving a concession in


respect of. continuous employment as against a long-term contract—I am speaking now, not in the interests of the employer, but in the interests of the men—is that, in the case of a long-term hiring, whether it be for six months or 12 months, the man, immediately before the expiration of the term, feels some degree of uncertainty as to whether he is going to continue in the same employment, whereas in the case of continuous employment it is not necessarily brought to the notice either of the man or of the employer that a period has arrived when the question of continuous or non-continuous employment will arise. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Clause is not mandatory upon the Minister; it merely says that he may introduce this system. In Committee there was one Amendment to make it mandatory, but that was very wisely withdrawn.
The Minister may reply that he has this power without the proposed new Clause. I see the right hon. Gentleman smiling. I hope I am not anticipating what he is going to say, but, if so, may I reply that, if the House in its discretion accepts, as I hope it will, the proposed new Clause, the Statutory Committee will consider the question and as soon as possible will give the Minister the power and the advice to make an order, thus giving to the employé the advantage which accrues from continuous employment as against long-term hiring. It would be very easy for an employer, in a district where long-term hiring is not the custom, to say that he will now enter into long-term contracts with his employés in place of their hitherto continuous employment, but to my mind that would be, as I have said, a very great disappointment to many men, and something which we ourselves would not desire. I hope the Minister will see that this proposed new Clause is not mandatory, but that, if carried, it would simply be an expression of opinion by the House that the question should be considered in all its aspects, and that he will see his way to accept it. There was a great feeling in the Committee that it should have been accepted there, but, as the Minister knows, and as other Members of the House may know, its defeat was due, not to hon. Members opposite voting against it upstairs, but

to their abstention. I hope that to-day they will see that their abstention was rather an injustice to the workers, and that they will support the Clause.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has made reference to what he regarded as unfairness on the part of Members on these benches to the workers in agriculture, but the hon. Gentleman never seems to remind himself of the fact that, every time he and his colleagues try to take something out of the contribution pool for rebates or for any other purpose, they reduce the sum available for benefits to those who, through no fault of their own, are unfortunate enough to be unemployed at different intervals.

Sir J. LAMB: If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that it is only to be done on the recommendation of the Statutory Committee after they have taken the whole of the facts into consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That simply means that the Clause means nothing, and that the hon. Gentleman is just making a demonstration which can have no value in fact. It may have a political value in certain Parliamentary constituencies, but it will not have any value in this House from the point of view of argument. The point of view of the Opposition on Clause 10, and on rebates as a whole, was explained on the Second Reading, and it was argued fairly and squarely in Committee. We declared that rebates were inconsistent with the principles of insurance, and that, once you start to give a rebate to this person or to that for this or that act of commission, or omission, the central pool will no longer be stable; for, if you concede a rebate to this person, obviously other employers who employ their workpeople continuously are equally entitled to apply for rebates. That system obtained until 1926. Up to that time any employed person who had been employed continuously for a long period was entitled to a rebate. The rebate was abolished, quite rightly, by the Labour Government of 1924, simply because of the administrative difficulties and the fact that rebates are inconsistent with the general principles of insurance. We took that attitude in 1924; we took


the same attitude on the Second Reading of this Bill, and we take the same attitude to-day. We think that the small sums which are now to be made availabble for benefit will be small enough in all conscience, but, if the hon. Member for Stone had his will, I very much doubt whether there would be any insurance scheme at all.

Sir J. LAMB: indicated dissent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think in those terms, but his actions imply that he would concede such rebates that automatically the scheme would break down. I do not think that a case can be made out for rebates in insurance. The good lives must pay for the bad lives, and the person who has had two years' continuous employment ought to feel very happy that, out of his contribution of 4½d. a week and those of his employer and of the Treasury, a slight contribution is being made towards the maintenance of his less fortunate brothers who for weeks or months may be unemployed through no fault of their own. I will concede one thing to the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause. If Clause 10 is to remain in the Bill as it stands there will be little or no justification for excluding this Clause. From that point of view the two hon. Members have a substantial argument, but apart from that they have no argument in logic at all. We are opposed to Clause 10; we are opposed to any deduction from the contributions which may or may not follow the Statutory Committee's investigation in any year, because it would tend to reduce the benefits or make necessary an increase in contributions from the agricultural labourers. I note the permissive factor in this new Clause, and for that reason I do not think it means much either way, whether the Minister accepts it or rejects it.

4.2 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I wish to support the new Clause. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that in my case at any rate support of the Clause has nothing to do with political demonstrations, because I have continually spoken and written in favour of this principle ever since 1915 or 1976, when I first worked it out on the first Agricultural

Wages Board, which was interested in the matter and was in the habit of discussing matters which were not distinctly within its terms of references provided they were of importance to the agricultural industry. The point which emerged in the talks that we had then between the employers' and the workers' sides, and the point on which this idea is based is this: That agriculture by its very nature is different from the ordinary technical sorts of employment. If you have unemployment in coal mining all the classes of men employed are equally turned off—the surface men, the men at the coal face and everyone concerned.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: That is not so.

Sir F. ACLAND: You cannot have men working on the surface unless you have men working at the coal-face and so on. It is no good cutting the coal unless it is to be brought up, and it is no good bringing it up to the surface unless you can put it into trucks and take it away. You cannot employ people moving coal on the surface and have unemployed the men working at the coal-face. In agriculture, on the other hand, there are quite definitely classes of persons who are normally employed steadily the whole of the year round and a different class altogether who are employed more or less casually for periods longer or shorter, and who reckon normally to have other employment of their own to which they can turn when employment on the farm is slack. One recognises that the whole principle of insurance does require that the people who are steadily in employment shall in the main pay the money which will be received by those who are often out of employment. But that definite dualism in agriculture does not obtain in other industries, in which the works are either open or closed and in which the different classes are normally employed or not employed.
Another point that might be made is this: The habit of not turning off men who might be turned off and whom it would pay the employer to turn off, has been very prevalent among farmers. They have realised that if men were turned off they would simply have to go on poor relief, and they have found some work for them. One wants that sort of thing to continue. Many employers would


like it to continue, and to be able to say, "We should employ our men steadily all the year round if there was some incentive, such as this Clause, introduced into the Bill." Under the Bill the benefits are such that if a man is turned off he will immediately come down to a lower rate, a rate which many of us, who think that agricultural wages are in all conscience low enough, are bound to consider is too low under the Bill. Employers will be inclined to continue the habit which many of them have followed hitherto, of keeping men on all the year round, but not unless there is some sort of encouragement to them, as there would be under this new Clause. Clause 10 says that you have to make a contract. Hon. Members on the Labour benches say that they do not like anything which will encourage men to make a long-term contract. But this new Clause does not mean that there has to be any contract, for six months or any other number of months.
The Clause merely says that you should not press too hard the condition which is bound to some extent to prevail, namely, that one class of workers shall in the main provide the money which is to be drawn by a different class of workers, and that there should be, therefore, some alleviation in the case of men regularly kept on without danger of unemployment. I think the principle of the new Clause is a sound one and worthy of consideration. In this modified and diluted form it merely gives the Minister power to make regulations under the principal Act. I believe that experience would show that the Clause would very considerably relieve the situation under which there is bound to be a good deal of discontent if men who know that unemployment is never likely to come their way are too much burdened to provide for what is in many ways a different class.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I object to this new Clause and I am surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Of all parties in the House the Liberal party have constantly opposed the right of a Minister to make regulations of this character. If this proposal is to be carried out it ought to be done in the Bill, and no Minister

should have the right to bring in these regulations. If the House wants this proposal adopted let it do it by proper Amendment of the Bill. I strongly object to handing this additional power over to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us that some employers kept on their workers and that if they got this new Clause they might continue that practice. In effect that means that employers will keep men on only if there is a consideration for so doing. I do not accept that view. I remember when the previous scheme of rebates was in operation, and, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, was abolished by the Labour Government in 1924. At that time the sum available to the workers was very small. The contributions made under this Bill are smaller than they are in the case of the ordinary workers, and there is only 25 per cent. to come back.
When the previous rebate system was abolished in 1924 the demand for its continuance was practically nil; there was no outcry from any substantial body of workpeople when the system was ended. The ordinary agricultural worker would prefer that the money should be put into the fund for better benefits, than that he should be given a refund. Moreover a refund system would be a most costly thing to administer. It would be necessary to search a man's record of work and to ascertain whether he was properly making a claim. If rebates were made they could be made in only one of two ways. The Minister has told us that there will be no money to play with, and if this Clause were adopted the Minister would either have to reduce benefits further still or increase contributions.

Sir J. LAMB: Read the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have read it. If you are to give refunds and take something out of a fund in which we have been told there is nothing to play with, you must do it at the expense either of contributions or of benefits. I want if possible to get the benefits increased, and I am not going to do anything which is bound to jeopardise the position of those drawing benefits. The man who has had 10 years' or 15 years' steady work is not the man who is worst off. He is the man who is envied. A workman in a town will do almost anything


to get town council employment because of its steadiness. He would never be in need of benefit, but he would have the advantage of constant employment. I agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley and I hope the Clause will be opposed.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. RICKARDS: I support the Clause. In my district in Yorkshire it is nearly all long-term hiring and we have practically no unemployment. But the bulk of the farmers and labourers support the Bill in order that the industry as a whole may be helped. We shall pay into the pool and we shall draw very little out. I feel, therefore, that it would be a very kindly recognition by the Government of the policy these people have adopted if the Clause were accepted.

Mr. HOPKIN: I represent a division where there are long-term hirings. While the last hon. Member has been speaking I have been working out precisely what the Bill means to the industry. Fifty-two contributions of 4½d. come to 234 pence. On a six months' hiring the farmer will benefit to the extent of 2s. 5¼d.

Mr. RICKARDS: A gesture.

Mr. HOPKIN: For a 12 months' hiring he will benefit to the extent of 4s. 10½d. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that this money can be spent in a far better way in increasing the benefits of those who come under the scheme.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: May I put it to the hon. Member who supports the Clause whether it is worth all the trouble of a new Clause to secure the slight benefit that will be given back to the farmers? The hon. Member was pleased to make a gesture by paying into the common pool for the benefit of his unfortunate brethren, but he goes on to ask for something back. The gesture might as well be whole-hearted or not be made at all. It is not worth putting the Minister to the trouble of bringing in a new Clause if there is practically nothing in it. If it meant much more than that, I should argue that the unfortunate people who happen to get out of work are more deserving of help than anyone else. I think the whole burden ought to be borne by the State but, if Parliament decides on a contributory scheme, there should

be no question of any rebate. We remember that there was a lot of trouble over it under the old Act. Only this week I had a letter asking if there was no chance of the writer getting any repayment because he had been paying for a number of years and had not drawn anything. He had inquired at the Employment Exchange and was told he had better ask his Member of Parliament. I shall have the task of telling him—I shall not say I agree with it: I shall be more diplomatic than that—that there is nothing for it as Parliament has decided that there is no repayment. If you adopt this you are inviting trouble. I should advise the Minister on the whole not to accept the Clause. It will be to the advantage of everyone if it is rejected.

4.21 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I think it is quite clearly recognised on all sides of the House that the proposal contained in this Clause is one that can be considered in due course by the Statutory Committee when it makes recommendations on the finance of the scheme. I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) in acquitting both himself and my hon. Friends of any desire to make a political demonstration. The House knows well that the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely interested in this question for many years. The particular schemes with which he associated himself were closely examined by my Department when this Bill was being constructed.
I certainly appreciate the genuine feeling which has prompted the Movers of the Clause to carry their case from the Committee to the Floor of the House. They are prompted by a very genuine desire to do everything they possibly can to encourage continuous employment, and to do nothing to discourage it. They speak for the large and numerous parts of the country where hitherto the long-term hiring principle has not obtained. But really there is this fundamental point. Their proposal is for a refund, and the principle of a refund pure and simple in unemployment insurance went by the board over 10 years ago. Long-term hiring on the other hand, after all, is a proposal for giving a rebate in consideration of a definite obligation which the


employer and the employed undertake. That is the fundamental difference.
The proposal of the new Clause is a definite inroad into the principle of insurance. The proposal for a rebate pure and simple is inconsistent with the social insurance principle on which we have based the Bill. That is the fundamental point upon which my right hon. Friend feels unable to accept the Clause. I should like to add that it is quite wrong to imagine that the long-term hiring principle is one that has any geographical limit. Though it may not be the practice in other parts of the country, there is no reason why it should not be. The long-term hiring principle which the Clause proposes is equally applicable to any particular part of England where employers and employed agree to adopt it.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment that I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask you, Sir, whether the reason why the Amendment in the name of three of my hon. Friends in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "contributions" to "shall," in line 31, is not called is that it would conflict with the traditional policy of the House? I understand that doubts have existed whether it would add to the Treasury contribution. I take the opposite view. I rather think that, for the moment at all events, it would dispose of the Treasury contribution, and because of that fact I thought perhaps you might reconsider your decision and call the Amendment so that the question of the Government contribution should be dealt with.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am really under no obligation to tell the hon. Gentleman why I do not select the Amendment but since I came to the conclusion not to select it the reason why I did not do so has been strengthened by further consideration. I came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether leaving out these words would have any effect at all and if it did have any effect it probably would raise the charge.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When we put the Amendment down we did not think the

words meant anything. That is why we thought it might have been called since we really had a very substantial submission to make and we thought we could make it on an Amendment that did not mean much, as well as on any other Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: That enforces my decision not to select this Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Rates of benefit in respect of agricultural contributions.)

4.27 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 to 19.
I move this in order to call attention to the inadequacy of the Sub-section and to give the Minister an opportunity of stating what concession, if any, he proposes to give as far as benefit is concerned. This Sub-section has undergone some slight change in Committee. In the Bill as presented the children's allowance was 3s. for the first and 2s. 6d. for each other. I am very pleased to say that the Minister accepted an Amendment making it 3s. in all cases. If he can show the same generosity with regard to one or two other things he will make the Bill more acceptable to the unemployed agricultural labourer. The Sub-section is divided into two parts. The first deals with the adult dependants' allowance and suggests 7s. instead of 9s., as in the principal Act. Then the adult dependants' allowance of 9s. was not only applied to the wife. It can, if circumstances permit, apply to the widowed mother, the widowed stepmother and others. I suppose the Minister will argue that, this being a special scheme with a lower rate of contribution, he is compelled to put forward a lower scale of benefit. But, if the Minister accepts this Amendment, there will still be a differentiation.
Under the Bill a man gets 14s. for himself and 7s. for his wife. Under the General Act it is 26s., a difference of 5s. against the agricultural labourer. If the Minister were to accept our suggestion and increase the 7s. to 9s., there would still be a difference of 3s. a week. I hope sincerely that he will do it. I do not intend to argue whether you can keep a wife on 7s. or 9s. a week. We think that the differentiation between the two classes is too big, and that there ought to be no difference with regard to


the adult dependent. Your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the previous Amendment, on which we hoped to discuss the question of contribution, may give the Minister of Labour a good argument against us. It is anticipated that if the adult dependent's allowance were raised from 7s. to 9s., it would cost approximately £72,000 a year, and that sum, according to the Actuary's report, is not available. The Treasury contribution to this fund is at the rate of about £600,000 a year. The three parties will pay £1,800,000, and £72,000 could have been found quite easily if the State's contribution to the fund were increased by a halfpenny per head. The Minister could accept this Amendment without throwing any undue burden upon the finances of the fund. I hope that with his usual generosity he will extend it to this adult dependent, and give us that for which we ask.
One has to speak a little more strongly and plainly with regard to the other matter. I want hon. Members opposite to understand exactly what is proposed in the Sub-section where it says:
Where the weekly rate of agricultural benefit increased under the last two foregoing sections would exceed thirty shillings, the rate of benefit payable to the agricultural contributor shall be reduced by an amount equal to the excess.
This is the first time in the history of Unemployment Insurance that we have put in a maximum. From pre-war days until the present time Unemployment Insurance has been administered without a maximum, and it is now proposed to put in a maximum of 30s. a week. The same committee which recommended the 30s. per week maximum also made a recommendation a few months ago which the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept. On 24th October, a few weeks before the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman stood at that Box and said that he was pleased to ask the House to accept the recommendation of the committee to increase the children's allowance by 1s. per week. He also said that the committee suggested an over-all limit of 41s. per week, which the Government were not prepared to accept. I would remind him of what he said on that occasion:
The Committee do not urge the over-all limit on financial grounds"—

I can well understand that
The Committee urge it on very grave grounds of public policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1935; col. 471, Vol. 305.]
What are those grave grounds of public policy? It is the belief that is often expressed that, if you give an unemployed man more when he is out of work than he gets when he is employed, you take away the incentive to find a job. There may be something in that, but why should that principle apply only to the agricultural unemployed? It does not apply to any of the classes of people who receive money from the Exchequer. There are hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite who have advocated subsidies to industry of all kinds, agriculture, shipping and so on, and money has been paid to people who did not need it. It must not be imagined that, after the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill has been passed, the only thing for the agricultural worker to do is to fall out of work. The agricultural unemployed man will have to fulfil the law just like anybody else, and they will take jolly good care that he does not malinger, and that if he refuses a job he does not get benefit. When the Government were not prepared to accept an over-all limit of 41s. in respect of more than 10,000,000 people in Unemployment Insurance, they ought not to propose an over-all limit of 30s. to almost the poorest paid class of workers in industry in a scheme which is to embrace 750,000.
I could have understood the argument if the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no unemployed man should receive more when he is out of work than the weekly wages he obtains when he is in work. The 30s. maximum is based upon the fallacy that wages in agriculture are in the region of 30s. a week. The average wage in agriculture is about 31s. 8d. per week, but, as was pointed out in Committee, when you make an average there must be some drawing more and some less. There are minimum wages in this country for agricultural wages as high as 34s., 36s. and 39s. a week, and there are horsemen and men who may be called the higher skilled agricultural workers who receive more than £2 a week. Still, the Government say to these men, when they fall out of work, and if they have a big family, that the most they can get is


30s. a week. To put in 30s. a week is a mistake, which, I hope, will be rectified.
There is another point of view which I wish to put before the House. This country is paying more attention to-day to the question of diet and nutrition than ever before. We have reports by eminent men as to the quantity and quality of food necessary to maintain a human being. The effect of the 30s. maximum is that, if an agricultural labourer has a wife and more than three children, there is nothing allowed in respect of the additional children. I ask hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies to keep this in mind and, before they cast their votes, to have some regard to what they are doing. What is the position of a man with a wife and four children receiving 30s. a week? If you deduct 6s. for rent, fuel and light, a very modest figure, it leaves 24s. to keep six persons for a week, or an average of 4s. per head, or roughly 7d. a day. I agree with what the Minister said in Committee, that it was a marvel how some poor families make the money go as far as they do. Is there an hon. Gentleman opposite who dare get up this afternoon and say that you can provide proper nourishment for a man and woman and four kiddies on 7d. per head a day, or even if the whole of the money available were used to purchase food? This matter is worthy of the consideration of the Minister of Labour to see whether he cannot withdraw the maximum altogether.
We had a discussion in Committee when dealing with alternative forms of assistance as to whether the town dweller was more generous than the villager and vice versa. The Minister quoted his experience in London which, I think, on the whole may be the true position. In the villages where people know each other better than they do in London, you would no doubt get a little more sympathy when out of work if you were in need of assistance. But why should the agricultural labourer be compelled to look for it? Why should, the unemployed agricultural worker be compelled to rely upon neighbourly generosity. Why should we not be big enough in the Act to make provision for a man to receive more than 30s. a week. This is worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. I did him the honour of reading some of his past speeches during the week-end, and I

would remind him of a few things he said when in opposition. I remember that in 1929–30 he pointed his finger at the then Minister of Labour and said that the unemployed man had a right to decent treatment when he was out of work. I would remind him of a speech when he said that young children needed sustenance even when the father was out of work, and I ask him to reflect on the possibility of a man, wife and four, five or six children having to exist on 30s. a week. He may say that the Unemployment Statutory Committee can reconsider this matter as time goes on. Of course they can, but the Unemployment Statutory Committee are not this House. It is for this House to say what shall be done. We arc making the legislation.
I should have been absolutely astonished if the Minister had attempted to justify the 30s. maximum on financial grounds, because he told us in Committee that it would cost approximately between.£13,000 and £17,000 a year spread over England, Scotland and Wales. It is so trifling that it is not worth bothering about, and I hope that hon. Members will protest against the 30s. maximum. It is indeed so trifling that I hope the Minister will take it out of Clause 3. I ask him to remember what he said last October, that the Government had disagreed with the proviso without in any way deciding for or against the general issue and had left the question open for further consideration. I ask him to apply the sate treatment to the agricultural scheme. Leave it over for further consideration. He should not make his overall experiment on a new scheme for agriculture, but should take out the 30s. maximum. If a man is blessed with a large family the children, whether the father is out of work or is in work, are entitled to good nourishing food, and to provide that takes more than 30s. per week.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend must have put himself to a deal of hard labour in reading the speeches of the Minister of Labour during the week-end. That is one of the things which I cannot do. I have often made up my mind that I will read a particular speech during the week-end, but it is very difficult, and my hon. Friend deserves


congratulation for his effort. He has provided good reasons why the case of the wife should be considered. The House has decided that the dependants should be given special treatment. I know that we cannot expect the full rate of benefit for the person, but we can argue that the 7s. should be increased to 9s. for the chief dependent relative. The 9s. is provided under the ordinary unemployment scheme and no one will argue that it is not requisite under this Measure. The case against the relief stopping at 30s. a week is even stronger. It is difficult to understand why it should stop at that figure. A great deal has been said recently about the birth rate, that if the race is to be dominant we must have more children. Yet the people to whom you look to provide more children, the labouring classes, are told that they will be a penalty. If they have more than three children there is nothing for the extra two children. If they have seven or eight children it means that they will still have to make do with the 30s. In the interest of the State I put it to the Minister of Labour that this question of the children is a vital matter, and if he cannot give the 9s. I hope he will at any rate relax the 30s. maximum and thus have some thought for those with large families who are doing something for posterity.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has moved to leave out the whole of the Sub-section. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) wishes to leave it out in paragraphs. If he wants to deal with the two points separately I will save his Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to have the two issues put separately.

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case I will put the Question that the words of the Subsection, down to line 6, stand part of the Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I take it that we can discuss the two points together but if we desire divide upon each of them?

Mr. SPEAK ER: I think it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss the two points together, but I will save the hon. Member's second Amendment and put it as a separate Question.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was not a member of the Committee which considered this

Bill, although I felt that I ought to have been put on the Committee. I felt that I should have been asked, but I suppose the idea was that we who are opposing the Bill must not be allowed to become members of the Committee. As I understand it, the costs in one case will be about £70,000, and the cost for the children less than £20,000, a total of about £90,000. It is a little difficult to discuss these matters because once you have passed the Second Reading of the Bill and the Financial Resolution, you have practically bound yourself to the scales, that is to the financial obligations of the Measure. Any alteration in benefits must affect contributions, although the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that a small increase in contributions would cover both alterations. I do not know whether that is so or not. The only point is that the House is bound by their obligations under the Financial Resolution.
With regard to raising the 7s. to 9s. let me make this point. We are apt to discuss the agricultural worker as a worker who is entirely confined to the agricultural villages. That is an entire mistake. There are a number of people outside agricultural areas who will come under the terms of the Bill. The seedsmen, near Baynes Park, come under the Bill, and they must be paid far in excess of £2 or £2 10s. in order to live in that locality. Take also the seedsmen employed at Reading or at Edinburgh. Every public park employé in the country, like those in Glasgow, are agricultural workers within the meaning of this Bill, and their wages are not less than £2 17s. per week. The extension of the towns and of motor transport has brought the agricultural worker and the town worker very close together. In fact, the old agricultural worker has ceased to be. He is now a mechanical worker; he works a machine. The difference between the two has to a large extent gone; and in wages as well. A large number of people who will benefit by this Bill are paid wages far in excess of what is commonly accepted by the agricultural worker, and I object to agricultural workers determining not merely their own wages but also the wages of people in the towns. They have a case in their own area, but it must not dominate the towns. If they are to determine the condition of the people I represent I strongly object.
If the 7s. is raised to 9s. it means that a married couple without children will only get 23s. Surely that is not an unreasonable proposition. As to the children, I am staggered at the proposed maximum. A man and wife, if our concession is not granted, will get 21s., and if they have six children they are to get a maximum of 30s. I have heard it stated that farm labourers have bigger families than town workers. I am not an authority on the matter, but I am told by experts and also in a lecture which I heard at the London School of Economics that farm workers in the main have larger families than the town-dwellers. But, take a family of five. The town-dweller is allowed 26s. plus 15s., that is 41s. per week. In other words he gets 11s. a week more than his fellow worker, the farm labourer. That is even if the maximum had been observed.
Under this Bill a man and his wife will get 21s., and everyone is agreed now that 21s. for a man and woman without children is the barest possible minimum. The Minister has accepted that. If that man and his wife have five children, those children have to be kept on 9s. a week. Each child has to live on less than 2s. per week. If there are six children they have to be kept on 9s., or is. 6d. each per week. The concession made by the Minister has increased the amount if there are only two children, but to my mind that concession has only brought into greater relief the inequality of fixing 30s. as the maximum. When I raised a point in a question the Minister said that greater implications were raised than was contained in the Unemployment Insurance Bill. At any rate, I took it that that was what he meant. In other words, if you accepted the principle of a family maximum you accepted the principle that people should not have larger families. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected, but I say that if that principle is to be adopted it ought to be done in a proper way and not introduced as a side measure.
To me the way children are dealt with in this Bill is fundamentally wrong. The argument has been put that this benefit is related to wages. Let me say that that is not an argument against adequate unemployment benefit, but is an indictment against the employers. We cannot get

decent unemployment benefit because the farmer refuses to treat his workers decently. Surely that is a state of affairs that nobody can defend. I say to the Minister that the Amendment we are now pressing is only a request for common, elementary justice. Farmers go about complaining because their milk is not being sold and their butter is not being bought. The greatest buyers of these commodities are working people. We demand that working people should be given greater opportunity to buy these things which they produce. I trust that on grounds of equity and common decency and humanity the House will see that the maximum is abolished and the 9s. restored.

5.5 p.m.

Major COLFOX: Like other speakers in this Debate I very much regret the low level at which it has been found necessary to fix these rates of benefit, but it seems to me that every speaker except the last has failed to see one of the main reasons why these rates have been fixed so low, and he, I suggest, has drawn a wrong inference from the facts. It seems to me quite obvious that these rates must be fixed in relation to the rates of wages which agricultural labourers are able to earn when they are in full work. Those rates of earnings must themselves be fixed by the capacity of the industry to pay wages. We who are interested in the industry of agriculture know full well that the capacity of the industry at the present time is very limited and has been very limited for many years past. The reason why the capacity of our industry is so low is that its main product is food and the urban dwellers who are so largely represented on the benches opposite do not see the necessity of making our industry more prosperous at their expense. It is they, the urban dwellers, who in fact bear the responsibility for sweating the agricultural labourer, and who by their action, or rather their inaction, compel the labourers in the countryside to accept a wage which they, the urban dwellers, would refuse with scorn.
Therefore, the responsibility for the low rate of benefit which is fixed in this Bill rests entirely upon the urban dwellers, who so stoutly refuse to allow the agricultural labourer to earn a decent living. Another result of the same fact is the necessity of fixing the contributions under this scheme lower than the contributions


which have been fixed for urban dwellers under their Unemployment Insurance schemes. When contributions are fixed at a comparatively low rate, as is inevitable in the case of agriculture—inevitable because the agricultural labourer is, through the action of the urban dweller, prevented from earning wages on a more reasonable scale—then it of necessity follows that the benefits which can be paid under such a scheme must be correspondingly low. Therefore, I say that the responsibility in every case belongs, not to those engaged in agriculture, but solely and directly to those people who through their selfishness and their regard merely for their own personal interests are satisfied to compel the agricultural labourers to live under sweated conditions and to grind them down. As I said at the outset, I much regret the low level at which these benefits have to be fixed, but I can see no possible alternative except to make our agricultural industry prosperous, and that cannot he done so long as there is a selfish disregard for any but their own interests on the part of Members opposite.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: I should like to say that it is not true that agricultural workers in all parts of England arc paid low rates of wages. In the North of England the position of agricultural workers is much more comparable with the position of those employed in other industries. If there is no reason why a miner who only receives a little more than £2 a week when he is employed should be subject to a maximum in unemployment benefit, I see no reason why the agricultural worker living beside him who also earns £2 a week should be subject to a maximum of 30s. unemployment benefit. It will be an injustice to men placed in that position. It is not only in the North of England that agricultural workers live beside industrial workers. The same thing is happening in the South of England, where small industries are springing up in some districts. There is no special reason that I can see why agricultural workers should be subject to this maximum, and I hope the Minister will consider withdrawing that provision and see also whether he can make some concession with regard to the allowance for dependants.
I want to draw attention again to the anomaly which may arise in some dis-

tricts where unemployed agricultural workers arc receiving at the present time from the public assistance committee rates of relief which are higher than the proposed scale under this scheme. Are agricultural workers now receiving relief to be paid lower allowances in the future? The Minister gave us in Committee an assurance that public assistance committees would be entitled to supplement allowances in special cases. I am wondering what is going to happen when the second appointed day arrives. What sort of scale is going to be brought up by the Unemployment Assistance Board? Is there to be another scale for agricultural workers who have fallen out of benefit, and if so on what basis of need is it going to be determined? Can it be argued that there will be a lower standard of need for the agricultural worker than at the present time? It has to be remembered, too, that the scale of public assistance does make allowance for rent. If we are going again into the question of the cost of living I suggest that there is no evidence to show that the cost of living is lower in the country. This points the way to the Unemployment Assistance Boards, after the second appointed day, introducing a separate scale for agricultural workers, and there will be a piling up of one scale after another. We are not now dealing with the question of standard benefits, but I do say that there is nothing in favour of retaining 7s. for a wife who happens to live in the country and whose husband is occupied in agriculture, whereas there is 9s. for her sister who lives next door and is married to an industrial worker.
I would like specially to ask the Minister whether, after the second appointed day, the public assistance committees will be allowed to supplement the allowances granted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not according to the Act."] If that be so, I suggest to the Minister that it would be simpler and more just to have one standard series of allowances for dependants. There will be a sense of great injustice if the introduction of this Act means, as it will do in many districts in the North, that after having paid contributions for six months or a year, a man on becoming unemployed receives less under a system of benefit than he has received in relief from the public assistance committee.

5.18 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I am sorry that I cannot support the hon. Members opposite. We must deal with facts as they are and not as we would like them to be. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), in introducing the Amendment, spoke with very great sympathy and sincerity, and in both those respects I am absolutely with him; but we must deal with facts as they exist. The scale of benefits must be in relation to the amount of wages paid in the industry. It is of no use saying that there are some agricultural workers who are receiving wages higher than the minimum. I am glad that is the case, because it proves that where they are able to do so, farmers pay higher wages; but I would point out that it is not these men who will draw on the scheme. The men who are receiving higher wages are in most cases the stockmen or what are generally called the key-men, who are employed all the year round and are never unemployed. Consequently, we must consider the average wage paid in the industry. There are other reasons why I cannot support the hon. Member in what he said. We were told quite definitely that the actuaries have not arranged for this—and I would like to remind hon. Members that this is an insurance scheme—and consequently I cannot see how we can accept it at the moment. With regard to the low wages in agriculture, the hon. Member opposite was quite correct in his remarks, and although he did not like low wages, that does not mean to say that he was not correct. I often find one does not like those things which are correct. The reason wages in agriculture are low is not—

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I tried to obtain from the hon. Gentleman who was speaking from the opposite benches some explanation as to the amount. It is very difficult for us to understand what he meant in this respect. Did he mean that the urban worker is paid too low wages and is unable to pay the price he ought to pay for agricultural products?

Sir J. LAMB: He meant what he said, that agricultural labourers are not paid enough. The fact that wages are low does not mean that agriculturists do not wish to pay more wages. During the War there were higher wages in agriculture, because the industry was able to

pay them. In fact, the agricultural wages boards are bound to fix wages which can be paid by the industry. The paying of low wages is very much against the wishes of agriculturists, but they can only pay what they can afford economically. Nor are low wages the fault of the Minister of Agriculture. When Ministers of Agriculture have brought forward Measures to benefit the industry, the House and the community as a whole have not allowed those Measures to pass. That is a fact, although I will not go as far as the hon. Member who said that hon. Members opposite are entirely responsible for that. The community as a whole, both high and low, has only been willing to pay prices at which it is uneconomical to produce in this country.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Sir, will subsequent speakers be allowed to range over the whole area of agriculture as the hon. Member and the one who preceded him seem to be doing?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): So far the hon. Member does not seem to be going beyond the point before the House and if he should do so I shall call him to order.

Sir J. LAMB: I hope the hon. Member is not afraid of my going too far. I think the House realise the point which I wish to make and I will not pursue it any further. An hon. Member opposite said that because the limit is 30s., if there are so many children in a family, that only leaves so much per child. Is that the truth or not? Under this Bill there is so much per child, but I would remind hon. Members that there still exists public assistance. Where there is need, application may be made for public assistance. I know hon. Members will ask why these people should go to the Poor Law, but it is not Poor Law; it is public assistance, and industrial workers have to do the same thing. I repeat that this is an insurance scheme and not a public assistance scheme, and under the scheme, as at present drawn and as calculated by the actuaries, these are the limits which can be paid. On those grounds, much to my regret, I am bound to support the Bill and not the Amendment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I doubt very much whether I would have taken part in the


discussion of this Amendment had it not been for the statement made by the hon. Member who spoke last, and who tried to make us believe that there are only n few men receiving wages above the figures which were quoted earlier in the Debate. Hon. Members have spoken of wages of 31s. 8d. as an average. That is true if one takes the country as a whole, but there are men for whom some of us are responsible, and who are engaged in agriculture, to whom we would not attempt to pay a wage so inadequate as that which is paid by many of the farmers in the country. We have very many men in our employment not one of whom receives less than 49s. 6d. a week. In saying that I am referring to the lowest-paid labour, because the key-men, to whom reference was made by one hon. Member, receive many shillings a week more than 49s. 6d.
It has been said that the benefits must be made to accord with the wages. If that be so, then this limit of 30s. is altogether too low for the men for whom I am speaking at this moment. It is unfair. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are these men?"] They are within 15 miles of the spot in which we are assembled at this moment. This limit of 30s. a week is unfair to them. Moreover, 7s. a week for wives instead of the 9s. which is paid to many others who may be living near them is a most unfair figure. I hope the Amendments will be carried, for at any rate they will take us some way towards justice within the limits of this Bill.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very important aspect of the Bill, the portion which this Amendment proposes to amend. An hon. Member opposite said that it would be possible for the public assistance committee, and later on for the Unemployment Assistance Board, to supplement the 30s, by an additional amount. That is becoming a most cowardly alibi in this House, for the fact is that it is not done except in a number of cases so limited that they do not count. Hon. Members who say such things, and the Minister, ought to be forced to produce on the Floor of the House evidence concerning the number of cases where the Unemployment Assistance Board supplement the ordinary rates of Unemployment Insurance benefit.

Sir J. LAMB: It is for the workers to make application.

Mr. BEVAN: Surely the hon. Member does not assume that applications are not made. They are invariably made, and would be made much more often if people knew they were able to obtain additional assistance. Hon. Members know very well that if it were the normal practice to supplement Unemployment Insurance benefit by assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, the whole of the insurance position would be destroyed. I am not now speaking about exceptional cases, but about normal cases. Let me take a normal case as an illustration. Let me take the case of an agricultural worker's family of five children, with no other wage-earner in the family. Do hon. Members opposite and does the Minister suggest that this scale is not based upon need, but entirely upon the actuarial needs of the scheme I Will such a family, if it goes to the Unemployment Assistance Board, receive additional assistance? I challenge the hon. Member to answer me.

Sir J. LAMB: It should, and I hope it would, receive full consideration.

Mr. BEVAN: This is a serious position and the House ought to consider it. If the Minister is not able to answer that question in the affirmative, then hon. Members opposite expose themselves justly to the charge that they are prepared to starve the agricultural worker's children in order to defend low wages. Perhaps the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will be good enough to answer.

Mr. TURTON: Make your own speech.

Mr. BEVAN: I am doing so and I say that I am not speaking of a family where there is sickness or any sudden disaster, but of the ordinary normal agricultural family. Suppose that a. man with five children, has fallen out of employment and that his maximum from the scheme will be 30s. a week. Will he receive any additional benefit from the unemployment officer, and, if not, why not? For exactly the same reason that this 30s. maximum has been put into the Bill, namely, because it would be as much as or more than the rate of wages. The assumption is "if you have to starve while you are working, you must also


starve when you are idle." The 30s. maximum has been put into the Clause for exactly the same reason as that for which the lower rates of benefit have been put into the Bill—to support low agricultural wages. No hon. Member opposite has attempted, either on the Second Reading, or during the Committee stage, or to-day, to defend these rates of benefit on the ground that they are adequate to maintain a normal family in a normal condition of health. If any hon. Member likes to make an assertion to that effect, I will sit down and give him the opportunity. Apparently no hon. Member wishes to do so. If that is the case—and if the hyena opposite would give his attention—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) must know that that is not a Parliamentary expression.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member opposite is in the habit of treating remarks from this side in that way, but I do not wish to make use of any expression which would be offensive to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and therefore I withdraw. I do not want to be drawn away from the main course of my argument, but I think it necessary that hon. Members opposite should be compelled to face the fact and they are trying to run away from it. If they defend these scales not on the ground that they meet the needs of the cases but because no more can be given under the finance of the scheme, will they say from what source the agricultural unemployed will get supplementary assistance? Will a man, in a normal case, be able to go to the Unemployment Assistance Board and will he, in normal circumstances, receive a supplementary allowance? Does the Minister say that that will be the case? Does the Minister suggest that it will be the practice of the board, normally, to supplement such a man's allowance? If not, and if the House will not take steps to see that that is done, then the House is saying that the agricultural worker should have a standard of agricultural benefit lower than the basis of need.
It is not sufficient to say that the workers will be able to go to the board

and that their cases will be sympathetically heard or that the board will be able to assist in case of special need. As I say, I am dealing not with the special case but with the normal case, and hon. Members have admitted that, in the normal case, the rates of benefit are too low and that those rates have been fixed because of the finance of the scheme. If the normal rate of benefit is too low, what is the normal source from which it is to be supplemented? It will not come from the board, or the public assistance committees, because if they did that, they would be destroying the reason for having any Bill at all. Hon. Members have frankly disclosed the main cause for the maximum of 30s. The main cause for it is that the rate of wages of agricultural workers is to be defended at its present level. We, on the other hand, had hoped that the agricultural workers' rates of insurance benefit would be used as a lever to raise wages. Apparently the farmers have had their way. This Bill is a compromise with the farmers. The Treasury said they were anxious to have this scheme adopted in the industry, because by so doing they got rid of the responsibility for 45,000 workers. They said that when the second appointed day came they would have great difficulty and they wanted to be relieved of a part of that difficulty by having the whole question of agricultural workers' insurance taken off their hands.
The farmers have fought bitterly against the proposal and are only reluctantly accepting it now, and they say, "If you are going to relieve the Treasury and simplify your problem, you must give us some protection and ensure that rates of wages will not be forced upwards by higher rates of benefit." The Minister, being a farmers' representative and not a farm labourers' representative, made the concession. He agreed to put a protection in the Bill so that the rates of benefit would not be used to raise wages. That is the reason for this compromise. It is no use using any un-Parliamentary language in order to obscure the native horror of what the House is now accomplishing. It is definitely deciding to reduce the unemployed farm labourer to a level of semi-starvation and it is doing so, deliberately, because it wants to protect the farmer as against the farm labourer and not as against the urban worker. If


the urban worker had more money he would buy more agricultural goods, and if hon. Members opposite want to make farming more prosperous let them talk to the other employers and not to the workers.
When the second appointed day comes if you have this maximum in operation in addition to the lower scales of benefit and if you are faced with the task of superimposing regional standards of allowances, as well as different industrial scales of benefit, there will be such chaos and anarchy in the system of public relief that the Minister will have an even worse time than his predecessor. He would have been well-advised to have postponed agricultural insurance until a later date, because his problem would then have been much simplified but I want to protest against putting into the Bill a provision which, in effect, reverses the whole public assistance policy which has existed in Great Britain since the days of Queen Elizabeth. The guardians of the poor were enjoined by law to take into account the need of applicants for relief. This maximum is an instruction to every officer to disregard need where need conflicts with the rate of wages. This House should be in opposition to such a proposal. That it is not in opposition to the present proposal is evidence of the degradation of public morals, to which it has sunk in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has put a series of questions on what he called a "cowardly alibi." By that, I understand he meant the limitation of benefit to 30s. a week.

Mr. BEVAN: No. The alibi is the statement that the man who has been limited to 30s. a week will be able to receive supplementary assistance from the board.

Mr. TURTON: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has his own interpretation of the word "alibi." He does not like the limitation of benefit to 30s. a week and he seems to have been surprised at it. While he was speaking, I read a copy of the "Land Worker" which is the organ of the National Union of Agricultural Workers for whom he was presuming to speak. The "Land Worker" for January, 1936, states:

The limitation of benefit to a sum of not more than 30s. a week was expected by all who have followed the official discussions, carried on during the past 15 years.
In the course of those 15 years, were discussions carried on when Miss Margaret Bondfield was Minister of Labour and when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale sat as a loyal supporter of hers on the Government benches? The hon. Member speaks of a "cowardly alibi" but surely the cowardice comes from those who when they were responsible, ran away from giving unemployment benefit and ran away from putting on a limitation, though they knew that it would have to be put on, if the scheme was to be an insurance scheme.
The effect of the Amendments of hon. Members opposite would be to bankrupt this insurance scheme. If they were carried the Minister would soon have to come to the House and announce that the fund was bankrupt and that there was nothing to be drawn out of it. I can conceive of hon. Members who want the fund to become bankrupt, moving these Amendments. But if they genuinely want to get unemployment insurance that will be of value to the agricultural workers, let them try to co-operate in framing a decent scheme that will work instead of making great political demonstrations like that which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has given the House. What are the facts? The National Union of Agricultural Workers put forward their demand to the standing committee, and that demand included the limitation of benefit to 29s. a week. The hon. Member assumed to speak for the National Union.

Mr. BEVAN: No. The hon. Member does me a great injustice. I did not say that I spoke on behalf of the agricultural workers.

Mr. TURTON: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member was not speaking for the agricultural workers. They thought at the time that 29s. was fair, but we have given them 30s. The hon. Member waxed indignant and described the Bill as a compromise with the farmers. He said the farmers have got their way. What in fact the Government have done has been to ask the National Union of Agricultural Workers what they wanted. They wanted 6s. for the wife, not the 7s. that they are getting nor the 9s. of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr.


Buchanan). They asked 6s., with a limitation of 29s., and they have been given a limitation of 30s., with 7s. for the wife. I do not defend those limits as being satisfactory for all time, but your benefits under an insurance scheme must depend on your rates of wages. The hon. Member for Gorbals talked about butter, potatoes, and meat. How can the agricultural worker get a decent wage when butter is being sold at 1s. a lb., when eggs are being sold at 10d. a dozen, and when meat is being sold at 35s. at the most per live cwt.?

Mr. MacLAREN: Does the hon. Member know that cabbages were 5d. each this week-end?

Mr. TURTON: If the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) came down to the country districts and took the trouble to buy cabbages off the farms, he would find that we could give him a, good many for a good deal less than 5d. each. I will send him a few down if he likes. But let us get back to the point. So long as you have low wages, you must have in your unemployment insurance scheme a lower benefit and a lower contribution than you otherwise need have.
There is one real point which has come out of this Debate, and that was made by the hon. Member for Gorbals who said that a number of his better paid constituents will come under this scheme. I hope the Minister heard him and reflected upon it, because if that is so, if his constituents who are earning, as he says, much higher wages than agriculturists are being put under this scheme instead of under the general scheme, I think there is a good deal to be said for those men being included in the general scheme rather than in this scheme. I confess that I do not see why public park employés should come under the agricultural employment scheme. They could afford to pay the full rate of contribution, and, that being so, I think they deserve to get the full rate of benefit also. I think that question wants looking into, and it will probably be raised on another Amendment, but for the ordinary agriculturist who is receiving a far lower rate of wages it is another matter.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) talked about certain dairy farms in which he had engaged which paid far

higher wages, but he did not mention that the Co-operative societies in their farming have suffered huge losses as a result of that farming, and it is merely because they are merged with a big retail trade where they make large profits that they are able to pay higher wages.

Mr. KELLY: What I referred to was not the Co-operative societies. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no other item included in either the income or the expenditure of those farms except what is farming, and the £18,000 profit was on the farming last year.

Mr. TURTON: I am very glad of that, and I am certain that my constituents will be glad to hear from the hon. Member for Rochdale how to make £18,000 profit in a year, but we cannot do it at the present agricultural prices. I ask the House to take a sane view of this matter and to pass a real insurance scheme. When times improve the benefits also will improve, under the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. Meanwhile, we have to be content with what we can get.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: There is one issue that is raised by the proposed deletion of this paragraph which would absolve us from the establishment of a new principle in unemployment insurance. Apart from the differentiations which we are prepared to admit should be applied under certain conditions, for the first time in unemployment insurance there is to be established a maximum amount of benefit. On what ground can that be justified? Further, this exception is being made in the case of a section of the community that is least able to bear it. Take an ordinary insured worker who comes under the general scheme. There is no differentiation in the amount of benefit given to the labourer in an engineering works because his wages are lower than those of some others. I recollect labourers' wages being 16s. and 18s. a week, but they were entitled to the same benefits as the craftsmen, who were the engineers, because they paid the same contributions. There was no limit on the plea that they had a lower rate of wages.
Those of us who represent constituencies that are equally agricultural and urban will be faced with the possibility


that next-door neighbours will have differentiations under the two schemes, not only of benefits, but in one case, whatever the family responsibilities may be, there is a maximum placed upon one family and not upon the other. I trust the Minister will give us some assurance, not merely that at some time in the future action will be taken, or that, provided the actuarial results of the scheme prove that it is going to be beneficial, it can again be referred to the Statutory Committee. What we want is an assurance that he will withdraw definitely the maximum that is laid down, because it is not compatible with the insurance principle. I do not wish to raise the other questions of moment on this Amendment, but I wish rather to emphasise that which is a deterrent to the acceptance on this side of the House of the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has violated the main principle of insurance by making it possible that there should be a maximum, a maximum which cannot possibly maintain human existence in many agricultural homes.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am sorry the hon. Member opposite was not prepared to give way when I wanted to interrupt him, because we are anxious to understand what hon. Members opposite really mean when they make statements regarding urban workers in this connection. I think the farmers in my constituency would subscribe to the statement that when the miners' wages were relatively high, farming was prosperous and that the depression that has taken place in agriculture of late years is almost solely due to the depression in industry generally. That is why I was so anxious to know precisely what was meant by the two hon. Members opposite who referred to that point. If they meant that the employers of labour in urban areas were responsible for the plight of the agricultural areas, then our party would subscribe to that.
I rise at this juncture to put the position of a constituency like mine. While numerically the rural portion of it is not comparable to the urban portion, geographically it is about 40 per cent., and in that partially rural constituency we have a very large number of quarries, lime-kilns, and so on, in which the

employés are paying the normal contribution of industrial employés. They are living in a rural area, in houses adjacent, and in many cases next door, to rural workers' houses, and this has thrown up, particularly in Glamorganshire, and I think also in Monmouthshire, a very singular problem. We have found, as public assistance committees in those counties, that it was very difficult to differentiate as between the need of the person living in a rural area and the need of the person, who may be unemployed and who may have absorbed his credit, previously working in a quarry or some industry like that. It has been very difficult for us to find that there was really any differentiation at all, so that throughout Glamorganshire—and I think it is equally true of Monmouthshire—the public assistance committees have granted the same scales of relief to rural workers generally as to urban workers.
Since the Unemployment Assistance Board has come in and taken over the work previously performed by the public assistance committees, I think it is true to say that, generally speaking, the board has observed to a large extent the conditions previously operated by the public assistance committees. But the House will appreciate that the rural workers as able-bodied persons do not strictly come under the Unemployment Assistance Board, and they are therefore being maintained in those counties by the public assistance committees and paid per week a comparable relief to the amount of allowances now paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board. When they are at work and are paying contributions they will, when they come under this scheme, receive less than they now receive from the public assistance committee as able-bodied persons. I would like hon. Members opposite to face the fact that these persons will have a financial obligation placed on them and yet they will receive less, after having paid contributions, than they receive now. The Minister will realise the difficulty in which he is placing counties such as those I have mentioned. It is not because those counties have been very generous, but because they are unable to differentiate between the urban and the rural workers when unemployed, particularly when they are living in contiguous districts.
The question I would have liked to put to the hon. Member who spoke from the other side is whether there is any reason why the State should not make the same contribution per individual to this fund as it is making to the other fund. It is true that the rural worker and the farmer will pay less, but is there any reason why the State should pay less, particularly when the State alone will benefit? Neither the farmer nor the agricultural labourer will benefit. Perhaps the farm worker will benefit where there is a harsh public assistance committee. He will then gain on the treatment meted out by some public assistance committees, particularly in county areas which are dominated by the same political complex as is reflected on the other side of the House.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Is the hon. Member speaking officially for the Labour party, and is it their policy to introduce into Unemployment Insurance the principle that the State should pay considerably more than the employer?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that the question shows a vast ignorance of Labour party policy. The hon. Member has failed to appreciate that the Labour party stands for a living wage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member will not be led into a discussion on this question, which is rather beyond the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You have prevented me from explaining to the hon. Gentleman precisely what the Labour party's policy is in regard to wages and Unemployment Insurance. I was referring to the point I wished to put to the hon. and learned Member opposite. There is no reason for this maximum except to maintain a low wage level on the countryside. We have experts, economists and medical men of eminence proclaiming that there ought to be increased purchasing power for the people. We know that poverty could be solved if the distribution of products were properly dealt with and if the people had the wages they really earned. Is there any reason why the State should not make as great a contribution towards this fund as it does to the other fund, in order to remove the disparity that will occur months hence between what the rural workers who are

unemployed will receive under this scheme and what they now receive under unemployment assistance? The only party really to gain under this scheme is the State. The State will have saved a lot of money when the second appointed day is decided, and persons who meanwhile have made contributions will receive substantially less than they are getting to-day. It is a raw deal perpetrated on rural workers who are unemployed.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I intervene because I am to have an opportunity afterwards of formally moving an Amendment, and I would not like to do so without having the opportunity of saying something about this Amendment. The two points before us are the dependant's allowance and the maximum to be paid to the unemployed agricultural worker. The bulk of the discussion has centred round the maximum, and I would ask the Minister and the House to look at the question again and consider whether the amount to be paid to the wife of the agricultural worker is enough. No one can say that 9s. a week for her maintenance is excessive. It is no answer, as was suggested by an hon. Member opposite, to point to the fact that the Agricultural Workers' Union suggested 6s. in their scheme and that 7s. will be paid under this scheme. That is no answer for reasonably thinking people. I am confident that if hon. Members were free to vote, they would all vote for the 9s. Various other economic considerations come in, and I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the question of the payments under this scheme.
The hon. Member who preceded me pointed out that there was one way out for the Minister, apart from the bankruptcy of the Insurance Fund, and that was to come to the House again with an additional Financial Resolution. There is no reason why the agricultural worker, now that he is coming into an insurance scheme, should not have an equal amount paid by the State as the industrial worker. The amount to be paid for the agricultural worker is to be a great deal less than the State pays for the industrial worker. It is not sound sense that agricultural workers should be the stepchildren of the State in this matter. The Minister will save himself a lot of trouble in future if he will recast the scheme and agree to the Amendment.
The position with regard to the maximum is this, as I see it. If a person is in receipt of the maximum he may go to the public assistance committee and get assistance at the present time. If the second appointed day comes into operation, the agricultural worker, while he may not go to the public assistance committee for this increase over the 30s. a week, may go to the Unemployment Assistance Board, which may do for him what the public assistance committee did before the second appointed day came into operation. While theoretically there is the possibility of the allowance being paid into the agricultural household being more than 30s., everyone knows that in practice it will not be more than 30s. if the scheme goes through as it is. That is proved by the common admission of the other side that 30s. is the wage that is now being paid to agricultural workers, and if 30s. were paid in the agricultural household it would create an impossible position. They point out that in many districts agriculture with present prices is able to pay only 30s. a week to the workers. Surely it is plain that all that is contemplated for these households is an income of 30s., and the reference to the public assistance committee or the Unemployment Assistance Board after the coming into operation of the second appointed day is only an evasion by which Members are seeking to soothe their consciences when they are faced with such treatment of their fellow human beings.
I appreciate the strong opposition to the provisions of the Bill from hon. Members above the Gangway and the absolute condemnation of the Bill in respect of the particular payments which are under discussion. After those speeches of condemnation I wonder how any Member can feel anything but disgust for this Bill and not seek to prevent its making further progress. I think the speeches on this Amendment should lead to opposition to the Third Reading. The Minister, I understand, came from an agricultural household and is able to recall his own early experiences, and I put it to him that with the recollection of what he himself has suffered in the past he cannot allow this iniquitous state of things to continue—this figure of 30s. as the limit for an agricultural household. I believe he is clear-minded enough to know that 30s. is the figure for a household, and that the references to the

public assistance committee or the Unemployment Assistance Board really have no possibility of practical application.
I realise the anomalies that will be created through some man who is unemployed drawing more in unemployment benefit than a man alongside him is getting although in employment. My answer to it is that every workman who is in employment at a lower figure than the rate of unemployment benefit should be allowed to give up his employment and take unemployment benefit. That is the proper answer to that conundrum. But I have another conundrum to put to the Minister. I am thinking of a village in Ayrshire where agricultural workers and industrial workers live next door to each other. One man when out of employment will be drawing 30s. a week for his household—that is all he can get—while the other, whose work is very similar, will be drawing, possibly, over £2, and may be getting £2 5s. Can any hon. Member defend that? But that is the position we get by allowing the Bill to go through in its present form.
I dread the consequences of this 30s. maximum on the position of the man who is at present able to get 45s. There will be a tremendous outcry—not to put up the income going into the agricultural household but to cut down the income going into the home of the industrial worker. The Press and the other organs of public opinion are very largely in the hands of people who will exploit this situation in order to try to reduce the rates of benefit paid to industrial workers. I ask the Minister to think, and to think again, before allowing the Bill to go on to the Statute Book with the present rates of benefit. I ask him to remember the very impressive speeches he made just before he came into this House as Member for Leith Burghs criticising Miss Margaret Bondfield for constantly saying "The Blanesburgh Report." He would do better to get out of public life rather than be associated with a 30s. maximum for agricultural households.

6.20 p.m.

The Minister of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The quotations which we have had from "The Land Worker" and a number of other people who have to deal with the problems which are involved in this Clause—those who have to deal with them from day to day and week


to week and on the ground—show that they take a rather different view of the issues before us than has been taken by certain hon. Members in the course of this Debate. The issue is a threefold one. Hon. Members of the Independent Labour party have put down their particular Amendment dealing with the rates of benefit. It is not quite the same as that presented by hon. Members above the Gangway, whose case was put by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). When discussing the suggestion that the 7s. should be raised to 9s. he said that, of course, nobody would say that 9s. is enough, and that he was not there basing his case on a question of need, but in that observation he undercut the whole of his case in the rest of his speech. Half way through his speech he, like most other Members who are supporting his Amendment, was founding his case upon need. That is the difference between hon. Members of the Independent Labour party and the hon. Members above the Gangway opposite. If hon. Members of the Independent Labour party had their way they would have a scheme for the able-bodied poor with no contributions of any kind. I know that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) also took that view, but, if he does not mind my saying so, I will wait to have higher authority, as I am sure the House as a whole will, before accepting his view as the statement of his party's view. It has not been the view of hon. Members of the Labour party in the last 15 years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The evidence given before the Blanesburgh Committee showed that they stood for a non-contributory scheme, although they accepted the present system.

Mr. BROWN: I agree with that, but I am talking of the legislation they put forward when they were sitting on this bench, which is a very different thing from any evidence given before a committee, and up to the moment there has been no indication that they would be likely to change that view if and when they sit here again. The real issue is whether we are now dealing with a scheme which is based upon insurance or a scheme based upon need. None of the Insurance Acts passed since 1911 has ever claimed to be based upon need, nor is this Bill. The payments are not represented as provid-

ing complete cover against loss of income from unemployment, but upon practical considerations of how large a contribution it is feasible to require on, roughly, equal terms from all concerned, and what is the best use that ought to be made of such resources in contributing to the maintenance of those who are out of work. It is on this basis that the whole Bill has been drafted, including the particular figures in Clause 3, and not on the basis of saying that the benefits proposed, whether for adults individually or the maximum for the family, are in all cases adequate for the full maintenance of those who receive them. The issue is what is possible in terms of an agricultural insurance scheme.
Despite his heated words, I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) will feel that the countryside will not share his views about this Bill. They will not regard it as a Bill which any Minister should be ashamed to bring in, but will be glad that at last, after long years, a Minister and a Government have been found ready to produce such a Bill. Everyone who has examined the problem in the last 15 years — Governments, farmers, landowners and land workers—have all taken the view that an agricultural insurance scheme must be a special scheme drawn up against the agricultural background. That does not refer solely to wages, but it means that account must be taken of the whole conditions of rural life. The thing that has bothered the real rural people, both farmers and farm workers, has been what will be the social effect of the scheme not only upon wages but upon the casualisation of labour and the whole surroundings of rural life. All who have discussed the problem have come to the conclusion that there had to be a special scheme, with special contributions and special benefits. With regard to the question of 9s. and 7s., I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton that we cannot argue this problem in terms of need. I do not so argue it now, never have argued it, and never shall. It is a question of how, suiting things to rural conditions and rural incomes, we can levy a contribution that is not unfair and give the best possible benefits to all concerned, whether they be adults, dependants or juveniles. We have solved the problem one way. Hon. Members opposite desire to solve it in another way.
I would remind hon. Members that I have not quite as much money in hand now as I had when we went into Committee. As a result of accepting the Amendment with reference to children there is £14,000 a year less available. Then I had a margin of £31,000 on a normal year's working—apart from the £800,000 which was the first six months' contributions—but now we are down to the slender margin of £17,000 a year on our calculations, and we are in a field of insurance that has not yet been explored, because even the trade unions have found the rural conditions so difficult that there is no insurance scheme in the unions for agricultural workers. That, again, is because of the difficulties of the background, which are at the root of the proposals we are now discussing. I am asked now to raise the adult dependants' benefit from 7s. to 9s., and I cannot do it. I am not discussing whether 7s., 9s., 11s. or 14s. is the sum I would like to give to suit their need if I had my own way, but discussing the question in the terms of what we can do within the structure of the Bill.
I am asked to do two things. The first is to give this extra 2s. and then to abolish the 30s. maximum. If the 2s. extra were given, apart from the abolition of the maximum, it would cost £61,200 a year, and if it were given in addition to abolishing the maximum the effect—taking into account that 2s.—would be to add another £11,000, making a total of £72,000. Abolishing the maximum alone would itself cost £18,400 a year. That means that to accept the two Amendments would cost altogether £90,400. The House will see at once that it is quite impossible, however much I may desire to express my sympathy or, as one Member put it, to show my generosity, to accept those Amendments. I have one other word to say about the maximum. I made the point on Second Reading and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) underlined it at that time in moving the rejection of the Bill. One of the difficulties in applying insurance to the countryside is that we are working in a field which has hitherto been untilled, and that no one could tell what the reaction might be. Responsible people, who have discussed it in the light of their knowledge of rural life, have come to the conclusion that if we were

to have a scheme based upon contributions and benefits suitable, as far as we could make them, to the rural background, we should be obliged to have, if the genuine land worker were to receive the maximum benefit of the scheme, an overriding maximum. The maximum in the Bill is not in any sense sinister.
We prepared this proposal with very great care, and gave very great thought to all the arguments which have been put forward for these long 15 years. I have come here in the full assurance that these proposals are reasonable. For the first time, in regard to insurance, we have an instrument for betterment in the impartial committee by whom, every year, this fund as well as the other fund must be examined. If and when our hopes are justified, they will be able to recommend in the future what is the best way to distribute the money, whether by additional benefits or by a modification of the 30s. maximum.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am rather disappointed at the Minister's speech. From the general approach to things in the Committee, we thought we might expect some concession in this matter. In no part of the Bill was it more likely that there would be concession than in the part now before the House. As one might have expected, the right hon. Gentleman has held very closely to the actuary's calculations. I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be generous, but I expected him to be reasonable to the families for whom the Bill is presumed to be catering. When he discriminates, as was inevitable in the nature of the case, by a special scheme with regard to contributions and benefits, there was nevertheless ample room between the two extremes for the right hon. Gentleman to make a nearer approach to what we regard as decent conditions, making this scheme infinitely more effective than it is.
What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he will confer upon agricultural workers who have a period of unemployment? The first part of the Amendment asks for an increase from 7s. to 9s. for dependants. If the Amendment had been accepted we should be asking for 23s. for a married man with a wife dependent upon him.


The whole scheme is based on a calculation of 7½ per cent. of unemployment. An average of about 3¾ weeks' unemployment is presumed for every person in agriculture. Some labourers would be unemployed for more than 3¾ weeks and others for less. For the four weeks, the Bill confers upon a man and his wife the benefit of 21s. per week. We are not asking for generosity when we plead for 23s. instead of 21s. We can put up a substantial case that, as a result of the failure of the Minister to concede something to the labourers, he might do a great deal to drive the best of our agricultural labourers from the agricultural areas altogether.
The Minister and his advisers, as well hon. Gentlemen on those benches, should attempt to place themselves in the position of the newly-married man in rural England confronted with a known four weeks' unemployment every year, and with a maximum income of 21s. per week. That sum is not a very great magnet or attraction in the countryside. It is fairly obvious that large numbers of agricultural labourers will migrate to the towns if there is half a chance of obtaining a job there. From the point of view of desiring to retain the best agricultural labourers a very substantial case can be made out for the first part of the Amendment.
Then comes the question of finances. It is being argued that the small contributions and the inevitable small benefits are the result of low wages in agriculture. That is not the end of the story. It is the duty of the Minister when introducing a scheme of this description to make provision for its finances. Apparently the Minister thinks that 4½d. is as much as an agricultural labourer can afford to pay. There is that mythical million which the Minister talks about. The Treasury are the only party to make a benefit under the terms of this Measure. If 9d. from employer and employé is as much as we can hope to obtain, there is no real reason, although there is plenty of excuse made, why a special scheme for a special section of the community in special circumstances should not mean special consideration given to it by the Treasury. As was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) only a copper or two is required per person per week to provide the increased

benefits for the dependent wife. The financial side of the scheme does not make any great appeal to me.
On the question of small wages in agriculture the Minister did not give justifiable reason. Questions have been submitted during the afternoon, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply, particularly as to whether a person in receipt of benefit under the scheme, and with a family in excess of three children, will be able to proceed to the public assistance committee and secure supplementary relief. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had replied to that question, because certain public assistance committees have already decided that no person in receipt of unemployment benefit can have supplementary relief in the form of public assistance unless there is illness in the home. Perhaps one of the most decent of our public assistance committees is that for the West Riding of Yorkshire, but they decided in 1934 that applicants for outdoor relief shall not, as a general rule, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as sickness and so forth, be granted supplementary relief. The right hon. Gentleman might have replied very fully on that point. The agricultural labourers in my division who are recipients of Poor Law relief under the West Riding county public assistance committee, will find themselves, after the passing of the Bill, with a reduction of their income, for a number of children in the family, of 10s. or more per week.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Nineteen shillings.

Mr. WILLIAMS: They will not thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Measure, and even though, by their losing, someone else is gaining, that is poor consolation to the families who know that they will lose these sums of money at the outset. Hon. Members should consider before they assent to the maximum imposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The cost of removing the maximum would be between £13,000 and £18,000 per annum. That would only affect a comparatively small number of families, but it would affect the wage-scale of agricultural labourers throughout Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman has these sums of money at his disposal under the actuary's report. We start with an annual saving of £31,000. The Minister bas conceded £14,000 upstairs,


by granting 6d. for the two children, and there therefore is £17,000. The fund has also a surplus of £800,000, so that the maximum could be removed and payments could be made for 20 or 30 years, and the solvency of the fund would never be in doubt. If the right hon. Gentleman removed the maximum from those families with children in excess of three, they could receive 3s.
It is rather late in the day for the right hon. Gentleman to lecture us, or even to hint at a lecture, by saying that, after all, this is an insurance scheme. The right hon. Gentleman removed it from the basis of insurance when he granted the rebate under Clause 10 for those who hire for six-monthly or I2-monthly periods. It is not an insurance in the full sense of the word. I am satisfied that the money could have been found if the Government had been half as generous to agricultural labourers as they have so frequently been to the farmers in this country; if they had felt that wives in the rural areas should receive as much as wives in the urban areas they could have provided for another ½d. contribution per week. We would like to know why some nearer approach has not been made to the benefits in the general scheme, even within the terms of the finances of the Bill.
An hon. Member quoted from a document from the Agricultural Labourers' Union as he frequently did upstairs. I wish he would be good enough to tell the House the whole of the truth. He well knows that the scheme sent by the agricultural labourers to the statutory committee was merely drawn up upon the actuarial calculations to prove that a scheme for agricultural labourers was a possibility. The figures in the scheme are not regarded as the last word mathematically, or in human need. The hon. Member told us that it provides for a shilling less than the maximum referred to in the Bill; he did not tell the House that, under the terms of that suggested scheme, the benefits would cost £100,000 more per annum than under this scheme. Why did he not tell the House that the suggestion of the Agricultural Labourers' Union was a 3d. contribution from the employes instead of 4½d., and a 6d. contribution from the Treasury instead of 4½.? Why did he not really tell the full story, instead of the part of it that he tells so frequently?

Mr. TURTON: The reason why I did not give a fuller account was that it would have been out of order. We are now dealing with two specific questions, the substitution of the words "seven shillings" and the maximum of 30s., and in each case the Agricultural Workers' Union asked for less.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member, both in Committee and on Report, has. without giving the full story, quoted short paragraphs or portions of paragraphs that suited his particular purpose, but he ought not to repeat that too frequently. That scheme was put forward in order to help the Statutory Committee, and the present scheme has emerged from the Statutory Committee's recommendations. Therefore, the Agricultural Workers' Union did, at least, help them to do what previously had been regarded as impossible—

Mr. TURTON: By your Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Not by the Government of 1929–31. The hon. Member has hinted that the Labour Government of 1929–31 had some scheme in mind with a maximum benefit, notwithstanding the number of children. Has he a copy of that scheme?

Mr. TURTON: I was reading out the views of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. That scheme was the Labour Government's scheme, not mine.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member hinted during his speech that the Labour Government had a scheme which contained a maximum notwithstanding the number of children. He had not a copy of that scheme in his possession. There is not such a thing in existence, and, consequently, he ought not even to hint at it on the Floor of this House. I happened to have the good fortune, or the misfortune, to be present when the discussion on the scheme of the Agricultural Labourers' Union took place, and know exactly what happened, and certainly at that time there was no suggestion of a maximum of 30s. for a man, his wife, and 17 children. I trust, therefore, that during the course of the Debate the hon. Gentleman will not impute false motives to the Labour Government., or, indeed, to any other Government that has been in office. We are


very disappointed that the right hon. Gentlemen is making no effort to mitigate the evil that we can foresee in some areas where Poor Law relief or public assistance is far in advance of the maximum that he lays down here for benefit. We think that he not only ought to remove the maximum, but ought to let the lady who lives in a rural area, divorced from all the social amenities that the townswoman enjoys, see at least that

she is not forgotten, even by a Tory Government. I hope that all my friends and many other hon. Members apart from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will go into the Lobby against the Government on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 5, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 117.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
6.50 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Albery, I. J.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Latham, Sir P.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Duggan, H. J.
Leech, Dr J. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Assheton, R.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Levy, T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eales, J. F.
Lewis, O.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Eastwood, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir G.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Elliston, G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R, E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bernays, R. H.
Entwistie, C. F.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Errington, E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bossom, A. C.
Everard, W. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Boulton, W. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Furness, S. N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gledhill, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Markham, S. F.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Goldle, N. B.
Maxwell, S. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Bull, B. B.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Butler, R. A.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Butt, Sir A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, A. C.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Channon, H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guy, J. C. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Patrick, C. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.


Clarke, F. E.
Harbord, A.
Penny, Sir G.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Harvey, G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Procter, Major H. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, R.


Courthope, Col. Sip G. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Remer, J. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jackson, Sir H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Donner, P. W.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Salmon, Sir I.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salt, E. W.




Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Stanley. Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Sandys, E. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Savery, Servington
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Scott, Lord William
Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Wells, S. R.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Willoughby de E[...]sby, Lord


Smithers, Sir W.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Somerset, T.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Touche, G. C.
Wise, A. R.


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L,
Turton, R. H.



Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spens, W. P.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Major George Davies and Dr.




Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D, R.
Parker, H. J. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, J. D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bellenger, F.
Holland, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Vlant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Oliver, G. H.



Green, W. H. (Doptford)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A,
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 3, line, 6, to leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 120.

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, I. J.
Beit, Sir A. L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Bernays, R. H.
Bull, B. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Blair, Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bossom, A. C.
Butler, R. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Butt, Sir A.


Assheton, R.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cautley, Sir H. S.


Balfour, Capt, H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Channon, H.




Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ponsonty, Col. C. E.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Clarke, F. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rankin, R.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Holmes, J. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, J. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howltt, Dr. A. B.
Rickards, G. w. (Skipton)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jackson, Sir H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Croom-Johnson, R. P,
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cross, R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon Sir I.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E W.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Sandys, E. D.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Savery, Servington


De Chair, S. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Scott, Lord William


Denville, Alfred
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Donner, P. W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dorman Smith, Major R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Levy, T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lewis, O.
Somerset, T.


Duggan, H J.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dunglass, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Eales, J. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G
Storey, S.


Elliston, G. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Entwistle, C. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Errington, E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Everard, W. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Taylor Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas J. P. L. (Hereford)


Furness, S. N.
Markham, S. F.
Touche, G. C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Gledhill, G.
Maxwell, S. A.
Turton, R H.


Gluekstein, L. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mellor, sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goldie, N. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. p. (Tamworth)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, S. R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
Moreing, A. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gritten. W. G. Howard
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Wise, A. R.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peake, O.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guy, J. C. M.
Penny, Sir G.



Hanbury, Sir C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannah, I. C.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Major George Davies and Dr.


Harbord, A.
Petherick, M.
Morris-Jones.


Harvey, G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Bevan, A.
Dalton, H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Broad, F. A.
Day. H


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brooke, W.
Dobbie, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Buchanan, G.
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Burke, W. A
Ede, J. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cape, T.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Banfield, I. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Barnes, A. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Barr, J.
Cove, W. G.
Foot, D. M.


Bellenger, F.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Frankel D.


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.




Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.
Short, A.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.


Glbbins, J.
McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacLaren, A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
Marklew, E.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.
Stephen, C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, E.


Holdsworth, H.
Owen, Major G.
Tinker, J. J.


Holland, A.
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, D.
Parker, H. J. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, J. D.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lathan, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Lawson, J. J.
Rowson, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leo, F.
Sanders, W. S.



Leonard, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Craves and Mr. Mathers.


Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).

Question put, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 122.

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[7.10 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Albery, I. J.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. sir H. Page
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Assheton, R.
Cross, R. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Guy, J. C. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Harbord, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Harvey, G.


Beit, Sir A. L.
De Chair, S. S.
Heslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bernays, R. H.
Denville, Alfred
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Holmes, J. S.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hopklnson, A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Duggan, H. J.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Eales, J. F.
Jackson, Sir H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eastwood, J. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Bull, B. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Butler, R. A.
Elliston, G. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Butt, Sir A.
Elmley, viscount
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Errington, E.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Everard, W. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Latham, Sir P.


Channon, H.
Furness, S. N.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Leckle, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Gledhill, G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Clarke, F. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goldie, N. B.
Levy, T.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lewis, O.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Liddall, W. S.




Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Loder, Captain Hon. J de V.
Procter, Major H. A.
Spens, W. P.


Loftus, P. C.
Rankin, R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Storey, S.


Mabane, W. (Hudderefield)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Renter, J. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sutcliffe, H.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Touche, G. C.


Markham, S. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Maxwell, S. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Salt, E. W.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandys, E. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Savery, Servington
Wells, S. R.


Mcreing, A. C.
Scott, Lord William
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Willoughhy de Eresby, Lord


O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hush
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peake, O.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wise, A. R.


Penny, Sir G.
Somerset, T.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)



Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Petherick, M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain Hope.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, H. J. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, J. D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberta, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, w. S.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, w, T.
Silverman S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Steward, w. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker J J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Young Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Naylor, T. E.



Gibbins, J.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, w.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Right to agricultural benefit and periods in respect to which it is payable.)

7.19 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 27 to 30.
The effect of this Amendment is to remove the words:
Provided that he shall not, he entitled to receive in any benefit year agricultural benefit in respect of periods exceeding in the aggregate three hundred days.
We do not see any reason for this limit. The conditions under which an unemployed agricultural worker is to receive benefit in proportion to the contributions that he has paid are laid down in the earlier part of the Clause. He is to receive 12 days for the first 10 contributions standing to his credit and three further days for every agricultural contribution so standing to his credit in addition to the said 10. Those are the ways in which the total duration of his benefit is to be computed. We see no reason why there should be a limit to this. If these proportions are actuarially sound, they remain sound. It seems a purely arbitrary thing to say that an agricultural worker who has been in regular employment for an extended period of time and has faithfully paid his contributions without drawing benefit should have this disability imposed upon him which is not imposed on the man whose employment has been more intermittent. It is a definite penalising of the man who has been in the most regular employment.
In other words, a man who has a shorter period of employment and has paid a smaller number of contributions gets the full value of those contributions as calculated on the 12 days for the first 10 contributions and three additional days for each additional one, but a man whose employment has been better than that ceases to draw any benefit after 300 days. On the proposed new Clause that we discussed earlier a very strong argument was put up by hon. Members opposite for giving a return of contributions to farmers and workers because of extended periods of service without unemployment. The House rejected that in our view rightly, because the return of contributions was of trivial benefit either to the farmer or to the agricultural worker. It was argued on this side that, if the fund was able to give some advantages, it would be better to

give them in the form of increased benefits than in the form of a rebate. This Amendment brings it back to that point of view. It gives a man with extended periods of service without unemployment the full value of the contributions that he has paid.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is in accordance with the insurance principle, which the Minister and hon. Members opposite are anxious to maintain. An unemployed worker ought to get benefits in proportion to his contributions. I wonder if it was felt necessary that there should be this limitation because of the limitation in the industrial scheme to 156 days. We do not believe in that limitation and I think we are consistent in seeking to remove it from this scheme. With rates of benefit based on the proportion of contributions, I do not think any maximum amount of benefit is necessary.

7.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This limitation is in strict accord with the recommendation of the Statutory Committee in paragraph 108 of their Report. The object is to make certain that at the end of the year a man can still he considered to be in the insurable field. We are not going to take away any contributions from anyone, nor penalise those who have been in regular employment, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It is only that, when the contributor comes to the end of his 300 days for that year, a new set of 10 contributions is required in order to make certain that he is still in the insurable field. Having got those 10 extra contributions he is not denied the extra days that he may be entitled to on his contributions.

Mr. MAXTON: Suppose he has 400 contributions?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The contributor can utilise all his contributions provided that after the end of the year he gets 10 contributions to prove that he is still in the insurable field.

Mr. MAXTON: Why ask for 10? Why does 10 make him a good insurable life?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not want to over-stress the comparison between this scheme and the general


scheme, because there are so many differences when it comes to the relation between contributions and benefit, but I may point contributions and benefit, but I may point out that under the general scheme three is a similar provision for re-qualification. It is not a question whether a man has been insured for a long time, but of trying to ensure that at the end of the year he is still the insurable field.

That is definitely the object of the recommendation of the Statutory Committee and we are adopting it for the same reason that they recommended it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 110.

Division No. 114.]
AYES.
[7.28 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Elliston, G. S.
Meitland, A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mander, G. le M.


Albery, I. J.
Errington, E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Everard, W. L.
Maxwell, S. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Foot, D. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Atholl, Duchess of
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gledhill, G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Giuckstein, L. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlck)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moreing, A. C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Morris-Jones Dr. J. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Blair, Sir R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Boulton, W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Owen, Major G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Penny, Sir G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Guy, J. C. M.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Butler, R. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butt, Sir A.
Harvey, G.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Remer, J. R.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Channon, H.
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarke, F. E.
Hopkinson, A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh.W.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Savery, Servington


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jackson, Sir H.
Scott, Lord William


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Latham, Sir P.
Somerset, T.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spens, W. P.


Donner, P. W.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Eales, J. F.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G
Touche, G. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ellis, Sir G.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)




Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wise, A. R.


Wardiaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)



Wells, S. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Commander Southby aud Mr.




Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, J. D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtie, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, H.
Marklew, E.
walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Oliver, G H.



Gibbins, J.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, H. J. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment that I select is that which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Regulations as to yearly and half-yearly hirings.)

7.39 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "fifty-two."
This is a very simple but important Amendment, and I am convinced that there is not a Member of this House who would support the Minister if he appreciated the implications of this Clause, which destroys the insurance side of this Bill. It concedes a rebate of 25 per cent. of contributions to an employer and employé, if the employer hires the servant for a period of 50 weeks. That is contrary to insurance principles. The Clause, in page 8, line 14, says:
For the purposes of this section the expression period of yearly hiring' means a. period of not less than fifty consecutive weeks.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will offer a much more substantial reply to this Amendment than was offered to many of the Amendments that were moved upstairs, and which have been moved this afternoon. I will take a simple illustration. A farmer hires a servant for 50 weeks, and for each of those weeks contributions of 4½d. will be paid, or 9d. per week for the employer and the employé. The sum of 37s. 6d. will be paid in contributions by the farmer and farm labourer. But as the hiring period is only for 50 weeks, one of the weeks will be a week's waiting period, and the second week will be that upon which the employé can receive unemployment benefit. The Bill definitely specifies 50 weeks; it allows the farmer to employ the labourer for only 50 weeks. The farmer and the labourer between them, in 50 weeks, will pay 37s. 6d., and each will receive a rebate of 4s. 10½d., making 9s. 9d. The annual labourer will be unemployed for two weeks, one being a waiting week and one a benefit week, and


if he is a married man with a wife and three children, he will receive 30s. in benefit. Therefore, we have a balance sheet as follows: Contributions, 37s. 6d.; benefit, 30s.; rebate, 9s. 9d., making 39s. 9d., so that the farmer and the labourer will make an annual profit out of the fund of 2s. 3d. That disregards the fact that the hired labourer may find himself without hire for a period of 12 months, and during the whole of that time he will be entitled to unemployment benefit according to the scales set down in the Bill.
It is an impossible position. Not only will the farmers and farm labourers who secure no rebate pay for their own unemployment insurance benefit, but they will pay for the benefit of the servant who is in the habit of being hired, but who on occasions is not hired. On top of this they are to pay annually 2s. 2d. benefit to the farmer who hires his servant and to the servant who is hired. It is a travesty of insurance. The Amendment which follows on the Order Paper in my name deals with the same principle, and I shall provide a balance sheet there to show the utter absurdity of the limitation of the weeks for hiring purposes and for rebate purposes when we come to that Amendment. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary has something up his sleeve which I have been incapable of perceiving to justify the rebate, which completely turns the hired servant outside insurance altogether and makes him a permanent and perpetual liability on a fund to which he contributes nothing, but out of which he and the farmer who employs him each take 1s. 1½d., this is the most grotesque arrangement ever made in an alleged insurance scheme.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN: I am entirely mystified as to the purpose of the definition which has been put in this Clause. Sub-section (2) says:
For the purposes of this Section the expression Period of yearly hiring' means a period of not less than 50 consecutive weeks.
As my hon. Friend has shown that leaves out two weeks, and for that period it is possible for the farmer and his worker together to make a profit of about 2s. 3d. out of the fund. That cannot possibly be the intention of the Government, in

an insurance scheme for agricultural workers. What happens if a man is employed not for one year but for two years? What becomes of the hiatus between one year and the other? The definition in the Clause destroys the whole idea of the rebate. It amounts to this—I have no objection to it, but let us call it by its proper name—that for one week certain the worker migat have a week's holiday with pay, but the pay is provided not by the farmer but out of the fund. It is an extraordinary thing that this definition should be in the middle of the Bill and not where one would expect to find it, namely, in the definition clause. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some explanation as to the reason for this extraordinary number of consecutive weeks.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAR KLEW: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said to me at Question time to-day I do not propose to overload his plate on this particular occasion. I have been looking at the Clause and making a comparison between it and the first Amendment to the Bill to-day which was rejected very peremptorily by the Minister. For the life of me I cannot, see any justification for rejecting the Clause which was moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Milton (Mr. Turton) and yet retained in the Bill the Clause which we are now seeking to amend. The proposed new Clause provided for a similar rebate to the one in the Clause under discussion, but the employer had to employ the man for a consecutive period of two years. The Minister could not accept that proposal simply because the employment was not due to a hiring contract mentioned in the Bill and refused to allow a rebate in those circumstances; yet apparently he can, if a hiring contract is made, provide a rebate for 50 weeks, or, in the case of a half year's hiring, for a shorter period of 21 weeks.
I cannot square the rejection of a Clause which is more just and fair to the employer and the acceptance of the present Clause which we want to amend. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has put the position for the Amendment clearly. It would substitute 52 weeks for 50 weeks, and the Amendment is necessary in order to provide that more shall not be drawn out in either case, whether it is


a yearly or a half-yearly hiring, than is actually paid in. We have heard a great deal about the necessity of keeping the fund in a solvent position. Surely this is not a provision which will help to that desirable end. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary has something up his sleeve or on his plate I hope he will accept the Amendment and remove an anomaly in the Bill.

7.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think I can have anything up my sleeve or on my plate, because there was no room for more after what I was given by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) this afternoon. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that he could not understand this particular provision unless there was some argument of which he had never dreamt. There is an existing and a long established practice in the North of England, and as we were dealing with a particular industry and with an industry in which there existed this long-continued practice, we have adopted it for the purposes of the Bill. The point is that the established practice in the North of England did have a great deal to do with our putting in this yearly and half-yearly hiring provision, but I was careful to point out that there was no limit geographically to its application. In the North of England the long-established practice has been to hire from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. It is not a hiring for a specific period of time, and in view of the movement of Whitsuntide from one year to another there has to be a certain amount of elasticity.

Mr. HOPKIN: The example which the Parliamentary Secretary has given the House is surely one that cannot possibly come under Clause 10. Whitsuntide may very often be less than 50 weeks from the following Whitsuntide, and, therefore, it could not possibly apply under Clause 10, which is a yearly hiring.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I was simply quoting Whitsuntide to show that there has been a certain fluidity in the (late from which half-yearly hirings or yearly hirings have commenced. It is to meet the established practice of long-term hirings that these particular figures have been put in the Bill. The hirings entered into are bona fide hirings. There

is no question of there being a few weeks to spare. There has been no insurance scheme, of course, in operation hitherto and there can therefore have been no idea of trying to wangle anything at the expense of anybody else. I do not think this provision will be open to any of the subterfuges suggested or that anybody will try to obtain undue benefits at the expense of other contributors. The hon. Member asked what happened to the hiatus. That is a hypothetical question. The scale on which the rebate is made is clearly laid down in Clause 10 of the Bill, namely 25 per cent. for a yearly hiring and 12½ per cent. for a half-yearly hiring: and
the employer and the employed person shall each be entitled, on making application in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, to have repaid to him the appropriate proportion of the agricultural contributions paid by him in respect of the employed person during the period of yearly or half-yearly hiring.
I hope this explanation will satisfy hon. Members, and show that the figures we have put in the Bill are justifiable having regard to the long-established practice in that part of the country where long-term hirings have been in existence.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether my calculation was correct. The Clause definitely says "yearly hiring," and the number of weeks is limited to 50. In that case, regarding one of the two weeks as a nonworking week, as a waiting week, and the other as a benefit week, is it not the case, as I have explained, that the servant and the employer, the hirer and the hired, will make a profit out of the scheme and that the whole of the unemployment and liability of the hired servant will be a liability and burden on the other contributors to the scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The phrase "yearly hiring" is subsequently defined. It is obvious that it is subject to that definition. I do not know whether the hon. Member expects me to check financial calculations in the course of Debate. However much I may have up my sleeve, I have not got a ready reckoner. It is perfectly clear that the giving of a rebate in respect of a yearly or half-yearly hiring is intended to benefit the people who engage in it. It is given in respect of a particular obligation


entered into in advance and is not something that is given to people in respect of a long-term employment. It is to be given to the man in respect of a considerable obligation on the part both of the employer and the employed and I do not see anything inconsistent in giving a rebate in these circumstances and not in the other case, and I believe it is in the best interests of the scheme and of agricultural workrs.

8 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I really must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the extreme skill with which he evades the point that is being put to him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, defending in this House an insurance scheme, surely cannot pretend that there is anything difficult in the financial calculation put to him by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but if he has not a ready reckoner in front of him, will he admit the possibility that the hon. Member for Don Valley may be right? On that assumption—and I understand he is not in a position to refute the assumption—the position is that more is going to be taken out of the fund than was ever put in. It is going to be taken out not for the benefit of the insured persons but for the benefit of the contributors on the employers' side. On the financial basis of a pure insurance scheme, how can he justify to this House paying to the contributor at least 2s. 3d. that was never in the Fund at all? He is going to make to the contributor' a rebate of something that in fact has never been paid.
That is the position he has to meet. It is, of course, the reductio ad absurdum, and I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it as well as anybody in the House. We have heard the Minis-

ter say in Debates on previous Clauses—and we accept it as being said with the utmost sincerity—that although he would very much have liked to make concessions to the insured persons, he left that they were not justified on general principles. To use his own words, he would have liked to grant if he could have his own way, but he left compelled to reject them because of the financial considerations involved, and because he had to make his schemes fit within the four corners of the finances provided. We all accept that attitude and respect it, although we may not entirely agree with it. We could suggest ways by which the finances of the scheme could be adjusted. But accepting that position, I think we are entitled to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to apply it as much against the contributors to whom he wishes to make a rebate as against the insured persons for whose benefit the scheme was evolved.
On the Clause as it stands you are not doing that. You are paying back to persons who are in the category of contributors on the employers' side money which is not really a rebate, because it is more than was ever paid in by the contributors on both the employers' and employed side. Surely the hon. and gallant Member ought not to begin by assuming that the calculation advanced to him is wrong and then base the whole of his evasion of the point on that assumption which clearly he is not in a position to make. I think I am entitled to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he wants the scheme to be financially watertight he has no right to make payments which are clearly not justified by the finances of the scheme.

Question put, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 111.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[8.6 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Boulton, W. W.
Clarry, Sir R. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cobb, Sir C. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Colfox, Major W. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cranborne, Viscount


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bull, B. B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butler, R. A.
Crossley, A. C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Crowder, J. F. E,


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Cruddas, Col. B.


Blair, Sir R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)
Culverwell, C. T.


Blindell, Sir J.
Channon, H.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Bossom, A. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Denville, Alfred




Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jackson, Sir H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Remer, J. R.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Eales, J. F.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Elliston, G. S.
Leckie, J. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, E. W.


Errington, E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lewis, O.
Savery, Servington


Everard, W. L.
Liddall, W. s.
Scott, Lord William


Fleming, E. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Seely, Sir H. M.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Llewollin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Loftus, P. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gledhill, G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gower, sir R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton on-Tees)
Somerset, T.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Maitland, A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens, W. P.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Maxwell, S. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Guy, J. C. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hannah, I. C.
Moreing, A. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harbord, A.
Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Turton, R. H.


Harvey, G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Holdsworth, H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Wells, S. R.


Holmes, J. S.
Owen, Major G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hopkinson, A.
Penny, Sir G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hulbert, N. J.
Petherick, M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Hunter, T.
Procter, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. James




Stuart.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
Marklew, E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maxton, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Oliver, G. H.


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Parker, H. J. H.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Potts, J.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, J. D.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Rowson, G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Short, A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)




Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, C. H, (Attercliffe)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Walker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Thorne, W.
Walkins, F. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thurtle, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen



Tinker, J. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "twenty-six."
In moving this Amendment I propose to pursue a financial calculation similar to the one which I propounded on the last Amendment. On that we had a very courteous reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, as we should all expect, but the courteous reply failed to deal with the financial implications of the case submitted. There was really no reply, and there was not even an excuse that the Parliamentary Secretary could advance, except that some time in the dim and distant past somebody said a year in a hiring area was 50 weeks. Because a year in a hiring area covers 50 weeks, then it is suggested there is an end of the calculation and it does not matter about financial implications. Those are the terms which have been in use for a long period and therefore, it is asked, why should one worry? We know the Minister to be a very sagacious mathematician and we know that he is seldom wrong, but we do not expect him to be able to explain away the grotesque possibility which the Amendment I have moved seeks to remove. Here, again, it is a question of a rebate granted in respect of a hiring that takes place for a half-yearly period, which the Minister interprets as being 21 weeks. I invite hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Thirsk and Molton (Mr. Turton), who is an expert in these mathematical calculations when they suit his particular opinions, to try to justify the Minister's and the Government's case, if they possibly can, because I do not expect the Minister to be able to give either a reason or an excuse for it.
I will give to the House the figures which will undoubtedly accrue as the result of the words of the Bill as they are at the present moment. If a person is hired by a farmer for a half-yearly period, and if the farmer fulfils the conditions of the Bill by employing that person for 21 weeks within the half year, the employer and the employé, each paying 4½d. a week, will together contribute 15s. 9d. to the fund. At the end of 21 weeks' employment, they will claim and

receive a rebate of 2s. 5¾d. each, or 4s. 10½d. together, so that as their joint contribution there will be left 10s. 10½d. There are five weeks in which the person may be wholly unemployed, and, as he happens to be one of those persons who is not engaged on a weekly or a monthly basis, but has only half-yearly engagements, the obvious deduction is that he will be unemployed for the next five weeks. One week will be a waiting week for benefit purposes, and the other four weeks will be benefit weeks, and the right hon. Gentleman's Bill will allow that person to draw four weeks benefits each half-year. Consequently, at the end of each half year the balance sheet will be as follows: The employer and the employé together pay in 15s. 9½d. and take out 4s. 10½d., thus leaving 10s. 10d. in the fund. If the agricultural labourer is a single man, he will receive £2 16s. benefits. If he is a married man with no children he will receive £4 4s. benefits. If he is a married man with three children he will receive £6 benefits. That is not a bad investment for a joint contribution of 10s. 10½d. There is the probability that every half year the labourer will receive in benefits and rebates anything between £2 16s. and £6.
A minute or two ago the right hon. Gentleman said sub rosa that this is a much better Bill than even he thought it was, but that is only the case with regard to those people who hire their services. After all, this £2 16s., or £4 4s., or £6 will not flow down from Heaven into the fund, but will have to be placed there by somebody. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a most grotesque arrangement, and I do not think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is so brilliant in skating round every legal, financial and mathematical corner he finds, will be able to provide an excuse for a proposition of this description. Football pools and Alice-in-Wonderland figures are not comparable with this proposition.
There is another point I would like to emphasise to hon. Members opposite—my friends on this sick are so learned that they understand it without a lot of lecturing. If a person who is regularly


hired for half-yearly or yearly periods falls out of work, we are informed by those best able to say that he is not unemployed for a week or two, but is invariably out of work for six or 12 months, according to the hiring period in that particular neighbourhood. Now, despite the fact that his employer and he pay 10s. 10d. into the fund and may take £6 out of it, he is entitled to those six weeks of benefit just as much as is the employé who works for two years consecutively, without being out of work a single week, who pays his contribution regularly and who never receives a penny from the fund. The hired servant is a bigger liability on the fund than are other agricultural labourers, and it passes my comprehension how an interpretation such as that contained in the Bill can be given. I am amazed that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—two ordinarily decent fellows for whom we have profound respect, for we know something of their mathematical precision and meticulous desire to get down to the last dot in detail—should have allowed this to escape their notice.
This proposition is wholly intolerable, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give a far better mathematical, statistical and moral excuse or reason on this occasion than was given on the last occasion, I hope that even the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), the last Rock of Gibraltar on the Tory benches, will be persuaded to come over to the Labour benches, for under the Bill there will be an undoubted robbery of every agricultural labourer in the Parliamentary Division of Stone. The hon. Member must be able to see that all his labourers will contribute to this annual four weeks' holiday with pay for those persons who are hired half-yearly. The hon. Member's labourers have to put up the money, and if he does not vote for this Amendment, in the absence of a decent explanation, I promise him that I will go to Stone myself and tell his agricultural labourers all about it.

Sir F. ACLAND: I propose to cover the ground that has already been covered but to do so rather more quickly than the previous speakers, by asking: If 52 really means 50, why does 26 not mean 25? Why does it mean 21?

8.25 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: Having had the advantage of hearing the original calcula-

tion, I wish, in the first place, to point out that for a quarter the sum would be 3s. 11d, and not 4s. 10½d., and half-yearly it would not be one-quarter but one-eighth. I would next point out to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that a thing may be a mathematical fact but a practical fiction. He is interested in football, and I will give him an example. It is possible for a team to play five games and score 20 goals which would be an average of four, but it is quite possible for that team never to have scored four goals in any one match of the series. They may have scored eight in one match, five in another, six in another and one in another and none in the remaining game. The fallacy of the hon. Member's calculation is due to one thing. He assumes that there is going to be a hiatus of two weeks in the one case and of five in the other, when such is not the case in practice.
I am sure that my Noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord W. Scott) will agree that there would be rejoicing in Scotland if they thought that they were going to draw out of the scheme, in the long hiring branch, the amount calculated by the hon. Member for Don Valley. The fact is that they will not do so. The hon. Member will probably realise that this arithmetical point which he has raised had occurred to me and that I made the same calculation, but I got the answer long before he thought of it and the answer is simple. In dealing with these hirings it was at first assumed that 26 weeks would be a half-year and 52 weeks would be a year under these arrangements, but when we came to analyse them on the spot we found that these long hirings, from term to term, would not invariably be for 52 weeks. Sometimes it would be more than 52 weeks and not less. It might he the case that the hiring between the farmer and the agricultural worker in a particular hiring period would be for 50 weeks, in the next period 52 weeks, and perhaps in another period 53 or even 54 weeks.
The fallacy lies in the assumption that because there is between the 52 weeks on paper and the 50 weeks a gap of two weeks the man would be unemployed for those two weeks and in the other case, because there is, on paper, a gap


of five weeks between the 26 and the 21, that the man would be unemployed for five weeks. I am assured by those who have gone closely into the problem that unless we had taken the course which we have taken in this Clause, a large number of those with whom it has been customary to make these long hiring arrangements would have been cut out. I may say that this has been one of the toughest problems with which we have had to deal in connection with the Bill, and we have gone to considerable trouble to find out which was the appropriate number of weeks in each of these cases. I think that the hon. Member for Don Valley will now realise that he was not on quite as good a pitch in dealing with this matter as he thought at the outset.

Sir F. ACLAND: I do not think my point has been taken. I can understand

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[8.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Joel, D. J. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Eales, J. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kimball, L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliston, G. S.
Latham, Sir P.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elmley, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (isle of Thanet)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leckle, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Errington, E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lees-Jones, J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Everard, W. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Fleming, E. L.
Lewis, O.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Boulton, W. W.
Furness, S. N.
Loftus, P. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.


Bralthwaite, Major A. N.
Gledhill, G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maitland, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bull, B. B.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxwell, S. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guy, J. C. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Moreing, A. C.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Harbord, A.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Colfox, Major W. p.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Harvey, G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Owen, Major G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Holmes, J. S.
Patrick, C. M.


Cross, R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O


Crossley, A. C.
Hopkinson, A.
Penny, Sir G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hulbert, N. J.
Petherick, M.


Denvile, Alfred
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hunter, T.
Porritt, R. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H,
Jackson, Sir H.
Procter, Major H. A.

52 equalling 50, but I cannot understand 26 equalling 21.

Mr. BROWN: We do not assume it to equal anything. It is the best figure that we could get to cover the whole mass of customary yearly and half-yearly hirings.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: But will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the possibility which I have outlined exists in every case?

Mr. BROWN: I do not say that there is not the possibility that such a thing might happen in an occasional case, but, having given the matter the most careful consideration, my advisers and I came to the conclusion that this was the best way of dealing with it.
Question put, "That the word 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 113

Ramsbotham, H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Touche, G. C.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Turton, R. H.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Remer, J. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Somerset, T.
Wells, S. R.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spens, W. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Salt, E. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Savery, Servington
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scott, Lord William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin and


Seely, Sir H. M.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Captain Waterhouse.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pothick-Lawrence, F. w.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardle, G. D.
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A, (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, J. D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holland, A.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brooke, W.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
MacLaren, A.
Vlant, S. P.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobble, W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valiey)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottonham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, H. J. H.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Interpretation.)

8.39 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 11, line 19, at the end, to insert:
'Private gardener' means a person employed in horticulture otherwise than in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain, not being a person so employed by a public or local authority, or a society, institution, association, club, or company (whether incorporated or not).
I move this Amendment in conjunction with an Amendment in the First Schedule, on page 12, line 11, to leave out from "gardener" to the end of the paragraph. Both go together, and they are drafting Amendments. The House

will remember that in Committee we inserted a Clause to deal with private gardeners and made it mandatory upon the Minister to put the questions at issue before the Statutory Committee, giving him power, if they recommended that gardeners should be brought within the scheme, to do it by Order. It is necessary from the passing of that Clause to make these Amendments.

Sir F. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to answer a question that I put to him a few minutes ago about 26 and 21, but this is an easier one. Is it simply the substitution of


defining a gardener for defining gardening, the occupation? Is there no other modification than that of defining the man instead of the occupation?

8.41 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I have an Amendment down to the Schedule dealing with this question which raises the question of the words "or company." As the Minister is aware, many private owners have turned their estates into companies, and this Amendment will mean that where a private estate is a company and employs a gardener, he will pay contributions, and the gardener when out of employment from that estate will get benefit. Yet where an owner has not turned his estate into a company, he will not be able to get his gardener into the unemployment insurance scheme. I believe that the unemployment insurance for a gardener is a benefit both to the gardener and to the employer, and it seems very hard that by the terms of this definition we shall be helping the man who has turned his estate into a company and hindering the man who has not done so.
I never like a definition that tells you, not what a thing is, but what it is not. Here you have a form of words which says that a private gardener is not a great many things. It would be far better if you could draft a form of words stating what a private gardener is. Apart from the question of the estate company, it is unfortunate that the people who will be brought under the Bill now are the very people who, earlier in the Debate, speakers from all sides of the House said should not be brought into this scheme, namely, the public park employés. This is not the type of man that one wants in an agricultural unemployment insurance scheme. If it was in order or possible, he ought to be dealt with by another insurance scheme, but that is beside the point. What we ought to say is that he is not more deserving of being brought into this special agricultural scheme than the man who is employed in private service as a gardener, and I would ask the Minister to think again about this definition. I am very glad that he has taken the proper course, as I thought it, of having a definition of a private gardener in Clause 15, instead of merely stating in Clause 13 that he was doing certain things for the

private gardener, without defining it, but this definition is not satisfactory, and I hope that the Minister will, before the Bill leaves this House, give us an assurance that this question will be duly considered in another place and that, if necessary, the definition will be altered.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: In reply to the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), the definition in the Schedule was to apply to gardeners, not to gardening, and it will remain a definition of a private gardener. I would only add that it is as it was in the First Schedule, with the one exception that we have taken the opportunity, in transferring the definition, to make it clear that the word "institution" includes clubs and associations. That is the only alteration in transferring it from the Schedule to the Clause. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), it is a difficult point, and I cannot say any more now than that I will look carefully into it before the Bill reaches another place.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to excepted employments.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, at the end, to insert:
2. Employment in agriculture (other than forestry) for a period of less than a week of a person who is an occupier of more than ten acres of land.
I raised this point in Committee upstairs on a similar Amendment referring to a smallholder of five acres of land. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into the point before the Report stage. It was raised before the Statutory Committee by the representatives of the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Central Landowners' Association. The House will appreciate that if these two bodies join in making the same request there must be considerable weight in it. The position is that in many parts of the country smallholders working their own land give assistance to farmers during certain times of the year. These men have no risk of unemployment at all, because when they are not working for the farmer they are working on their own holdings, and it would be a fraud upon them if they were


forced to pay contributions when they could not ever satisfy the first statutory condition for drawing benefit. I know that the Minister has certain powers and he may be able to say that they cover my point, but we who represent agricultural constituencies feel that these men should also have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will exercise those powers in their favour and exclude them from the provisions of this scheme.

8.47 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
Smallholdings vary considerably in their character in different districts. If a man has a smallholding which is mostly of grass or all grass, he will probably be able to take ordinary employment elsewhere and come into insurance. Where, however, he has a holding for specialised purposes he will be fully employed, and it is better that he should spend all his time on his land without going to work elsewhere. One of the greatest factors of success in smallholdings is that of friendly co-operation among the holders and agriculturists in a district. There are many cases where a man who has a smallholding receives help by the loan of implements, horses and other assistance at particular times. That man is able at times to be of great assistance to the farmer by giving him a couple of days threshing. It is purely casual work, but not of the kind that displaces other casual labour of a regular kind. It is intermittent, and the class of man who does it should have the advantage of being employed without having to be insured.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to this important point. The smaller of the two issues that he raised is covered by Section 5 (1) (c) and Section 5 (1) (d) of the principal Act, where there are enough powers to do what he requires. The major issue which he raised is rather different. The Statutory Committee have recommended that the matter should be dealt with by regulations, but I am not sure whether the power I already possess is enough. If it is not, I will before another stage take such powers as are necessary to make what is on all sides agreed to be a necessary provision.

Mr. TURTON: In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 12, line 11, leave out from "gardener," to the end of the paragraph.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Weekly rates of agricultural benefit.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Before I call on the Amendments to this Schedule, I ought to point out that they fall into two classes, both comprising separate schemes. The scheme in the name of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and others is out of order as it is contrary to a decision taken by the House. In regard to the other scheme in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), it would, I think, be for the convenience of the House if we had a general discussion on the whole scheme on the first Amendment.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, to leave out "14s. 0d." and to insert "15s. 0d."
The Amendments in my name to this Schedule propose to raise the amount of benefit to adult workers from 14s. to 15s., for women over 21 from 12s. 6d. to 13s. 6d., and so on down to girls under 17, whose benefit I propose should be raised from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. In view of the fact that we have had a long discussion on the principle of assimilating the benefits of the agricultural insurance scheme with the benefits under the general Act, I do not propose to go into details. I want to direct attention to three points. Why, in a Bill to make provision for agricultural labourers, are the benefits provided less than are recognised as being necessary for all other workers under the general Act? Various reasons have been given by the Government for this differentiation. One is that the contributions are less and that the benefits should therefore be less. Another is that all investigations which in the past 10 or 12 years have been exploring the advisability of an insurance scheme for agricultural workers have been based upon a lower contribution with lower benefits on the ground that those in the industry, including the workmen, were not able to


pay the ordinary contributions and therefore the benefits ought to be correspondingly lower. I would call the attention of the Minister to the fact that that statement was not historically correct, because in the report of the Statutory Committee, upon which this Bill has been based to a large extent, it is stated on page 5:
The subject was considered in 1926 by another committee, also under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Rew, appointed as an inter-departmental committee by the two Ministers concerned with agriculture. Two reports were presented, one signed by the chairman, two independent members and three workers' representatives, and the other signed by two independent members and three employers' representatives. As regards England and Wales, the majority report recommended the adoption of a special scheme providing the same rates of benefit as the general scheme, but with lower rates of contribution.
Therefore, the Minister's statement that all the reports had assumed that both contributions and benefits must be lower are not correct. The second ground on which I recommend these Amendments is that in my view the Government are losing a very fine opportunity of putting an end to this disgraceful, if I may so call it, distinction which has existed for so many years between the treatment of the agricultural workers on the one hand and the industrial workers on the other. It would have been a great step forward if we had at long last taken the agricultural worker into the general comity of the workers.
I should like to know whether it is finance that stands in the way of granting these concessions. It is true that if these Amendments were accepted some additional money would have to be provided, but we have to hear in mind that, as was pointed out in the Financial Memarondum to the Bill, the total amount which the State is contributing to this great stride in our social life is only £600,000, and even in paying that sum the State will be making a saving, because the 7 per cent. of the agricultural population who are now unemployed have to obtain assistance from public sources and that expenditure will be saved when they are entitled to unemployment benefit. In view of that fact one would have thought the Government would have been more magnanimous. All that would be required

to give the same rates of benefit as obtain in the general Act would be about £300,000. That would have given to the dependent wife, to the adult man, and to all the other categories of beneficiaries the same rates of benefit as are now received under the existing Acts. I suggest to the Minister that, even at this late hour, something might be done to bring the benefits for agricultural workers up to the level of those for other workers.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the. Amendment.
I want specifically to draw the attention of the Minister to the disparity in the benefits between the two age groups in which young men and young women are included, a subject which I raised during the ommittee stage. We look upon these benefits not so much in relation to the wages those young people would earn if in employment but from the point of view of the maintenance of the young people when out of work. The disparity to which I would first direct attention is that a young man between 18 and 21 years of age will get 10s. 6d. a week benefit and a bay or youth between 17 and 18 years of age 6s. a week. Just at the period of the change-over from the one group to the other there will be a difference of 4s. 6d. a week in benefit. Itcan hardly be argued that a youth just under 18 years of age can be fed, clothed, and, possibly, given pocket money out of 6s. a week. There might have been a regrading between those ages. It cannot be argued that a youth of from 17 to 18, rapidly growing into manhood, can be maintained on 6s. a week. If things are left as they are in the Bill it will mean an intensification of the draft of youth from the countryside to the towns, thereby increasing the competition among the urban industrial population.
We are entitled to ask that a young man of from 18 to 21 years of age should receive 12s. 6d., and that at least 2s. additional benefit should be given to youths. Young woman who are approaching womanhood desire to have at least some of the advantages of life, even if unemployed, and it is unreasonable to expect that she should be content with 5s. per week if under 18 years of age. There will, in this case also, be the drift which we deplore from the country to


the town, not only intensifying competition in the industrial centres, but bringing greater evils in their train. A girl up to the age of 17 will be allowed a benefit of 6d. more than that to which she might have been entitled just as she was leaving school and was dependent upon her father. The child of an agricultural worker, entitled to 3s. for maintenance while at school, will get only an additional 6d.—I suppose to enable her to go to the pictures—if she happens to become unemployed in the same family when she is a young woman of nearly 17. This is not maintenance in the sense of maintaining the vitality of persons who are unemployed, and of retaining the physical and mental attitude towards industry which will make them want to come into industry again. I am seconding the proposal in the hope that there will be some variation in the regrading, so as to eliminate some of these distinctions and differences and to give compensation in the higher benefit scales.

9.8 p.m.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: We who represent agricultural constituencies feel disposed to support this series of Amendments in the names of hon. Members opposite, to give increased benefits to the agricultural workers. We desire to see the agricultural workers with as good a standard of living as is possessed by the workers in town industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here."] If we were merely concerned with gaining popularity in our constituencies, and that were our only objective, we might be in the Lobby with hon. Members opposite. That is not our purpose in this House, which is to do justice. If the benefits are to be increased, it will be essential to increase the contributions also, but the industry of agriculture is not in a position to pay increased contributions. Hon. Members opposite assume that the standard of living of the agricultural workers can only equal that of the town dwellers if their benefits are equal, and that is where I disagree with hon. Members. That is not a correct interpretation of the position. The agricultural worker is able to live and to maintain his standard of living on far less money per week than is the town dweller.
Within my experience is the case of a man who went from a country district into a town, where he received a 50 per

cent. increase of wages. After being in the town for some time, he came back to agriculture, saying that the lower wage there was more good to him than the higher wage of the town. Rents paid in agricultural areas are very much lower than in the towns, and the gardens attached to the cottages produce vegetables for which the town worker has to pay, but which the agricultural worker is able to grow. The man in the country is able, in many cases, to get a farm with a pig, and so on, and he has many supplementary sources of income. Though we desire that the agricultural worker shall have as good a standard of living when unemployed as the town worker, we feel that, with the lower benefits provided in the Bill, the agricultural worker will be able to exist on a standard of living equal to that of the town worker. That is why we on this side of the House shall support the Bill as it stands, because it will give the agricultural worker the standard of living which he ought to have.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I thought we were some distance away from what used to be the old view in the countryside, that the agricultural worker should accept a lower standard of living than the rest of the community, but I find that the old country squire feeling that the farm labourer has a fine standard of living and has everything that he wants, is always the same. Nevertheless, the countryside is being denuded of its workers, who are trying to find their way into the industries in the towns. What is causing them to do that? [HON. MEMBERS: "The wireless!"] No, the cause is the poor conditions under which they have to live, while the rest of the country has made some advance upon the conditions of 50 or 100 years ago. It is because of this position of things that we move the Amendment. We wish to bring to the notice of the House our view that the farm labourer is entitled to the same standard of living as workers in the towns. I am desirous that agricultural workers should not be driven away from the land and I would expect that agriculturists in their own interest would support our Amendment.
When the agricultural worker becomes unemployed he will be thinking that he can get benefits, but when he finds that the rate of benefit of the industrial worker is much higher than his own, he


will become discontented. He will remember what the Tory Members said they would bring in for his benefit, and he will find that he is not getting what he thought he would receive. When you put into men's minds the idea that they will get something, discontent is created if that something is not as large as they expect. When the agricultural workers get their meagre benefit, they will begin to ask themselves how it is that they are not entitled to as much as the town worker. Hon. Members will reply: "You are not paying the same amount, and you therefore cannot receive the same." Our point of view is that the Government should give a little bit more from their purse, while not increasing the contributions, because, owing to their low wages, the men cannot afford to pay any more. The Government should respond to the appeal and provide a little more, so that larger benefits can be given to agricultural workers.
It may be said that the farm worker has a garden and so on, and pays a low rent, but it is difficult to see, even under such conditions, how the benefits provided in the Bill will give him anything like a decent standard of life. I realise, of course, that this Amendment will not be carried, but I have said, both in this House and outside, that I cannot agree to a scheme which puts one section of workers below another, and that is why I strongly object to the scheme as it stands, and felt that I must take this opportunity of putting forward my view, though I know that it will have no effect. As I have said on many occasions, we put forward points of view which later on are gladly accepted by hon. Members opposite, but the unfortunate thing is that we never get any of the credit. They always point out how much wiser they are than we, that they watch carefully the trend of the times, and, like all wise statesmen, they bow to the storm and they get the credit. Then they get another term of office after all the work that we have done. But we, as long-suffering politicians, continue to do our best, and are glad when at any time our efforts succeed.

9.17 p.m.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but,

recognising the responsibility that his party have for the present condition of agriculture, I cannot allow a statement like the one he has just made to go unchallenged. The Labour party, during their tenure of office, had sample opportunities of putting this matter on a sound basis, but they funked the issue.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not forgotten that the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the two pa-ties jointly, have been in office in this country for hundreds of years.

Major BRAITHWAITE: It is no use exonerating yourself at the expense of other people. Hon. Members opposite had the opportunity at that time. Now we have for the first time a Minister of Labour who has done a real practical service to agriculture in giving us the benefits for which we have been asking for a very long time. I am only sorry that, because of the attitude of the Labour and Liberal parties, agriculture is now in such a condition that we cannot have the same rates of wages and the same benefits that other industries have. This country has been allowed to become an open market for foreign-produced foods for generations—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that we had better debate this on some more suitable occasion.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I am sorry if I have transgressed. We are challenged on the question of the amount of benefits that can be paid to agricultural workers out of the funds of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, bat we are bound to recognise that, if the industry is saddled with too much financial responsibility at a difficult time, it is going to suffer, and those engaged in the industry are going to suffer, far more than will be the case if the scheme is put on a sound practical financial basis from the start. I am sure that the Minister of Labour, if he sees that the fund is working successfully, will consider sympathetically whether any advance can be made in the rates of benefit, but I would ask my hon. Friends opposite to recognise that agriculture to-day is having a very hard fight, it spite of all that is being done for it, and that we cannot expect to make the industry a paying and profitable one, in which men and


women can find remunerative employment, if it is saddled with a financial responsibility that it is not able to bear.

Mr. KELLY: We have not suggested that it should be saddled with a financial responsibility that it is not able to bear. We are suggesting that the Government should find a greater contribution, in order to ease your position and better that of the men.

Major BRAITHWAITE: Under the terms of this Amendment I understand that that would be out of order if it were proposed. We who come from the countryside appreciate the difficulties of the Minister in connection with this Measure, and realise the limitations to which he is subject at the moment. We thank him for what he has done, and hope that, when he has had the scheme in operation for some time, he will be able to review it and give us the benefit of experience in running a scheme of this sort, which may be to the benefit of agriculture generally.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). I remember in the last Parliament a reference of his to the two Walters, and to the fact that it was necessary to convert one of them in order to carry out the policy of the other. This is a similar case, but the operation has to be carried out in the opposite direction. When we ask for an increase of benefit for the farm worker, the hon. Member says he is satisfied with the Bill as it stands and is going to support it, but he makes no statement whatever as to whether the benefits it provides are sufficient to maintain the farm worker, the farm worker's son or the farm worker's daughter. Apparently the Minister of Labour, in laying down this scale of benefits, thinks that a daughter can live more cheaply than a son, but that is all "bunkum." If I take my daughter or my wife on a tramcar in London, the conductor does not charge a lower fare for her than he does for me. If I have a fifteen-penny dinner in a restaurant, and she has the same, I am not told that my wife or daughter can be kept more cheaply than myself, and that therefore the charge will only be a "bob" for her. In the same way, if a wife or daughter goes into a shop to buy something, does it cost her less than it costs for the son? When you

come to maintain daughters, they cost as much as, if not more than, a son does. I would ask hon. Members opposite how they would like to maintain one of their lads of 18 on 6s. a week? Could they manage it?

Major BRAITHWAITE: If he is an agriculturist, he will be on the land at that age. There are plenty of jobs on the land for people of that age.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: This is not for someone on the land, but for someone off the land. The lad between 17 and 18 years of age will get 6s. a week. Could hon. Members maintain him on that, leaving out clothes and other things? I say No. That lad has to be thrown on to his parents, who may be in work. The lad who has not attained the age of 17 gets 4s. a week. The boy who has not attained the age of 16, if his father is working and he is out of work, does not get a penny piece, because between the ages of 14 and 16 the father can only draw for him when the father is out of work. The parents of boys and girls who may have been in employment and paid their 2d. a week up to the age of 15 or 15½, cannot get a penny piece for them even if they are out of work for six months. Hon. Members opposite were pleading very hard in the last Parliament for a beef subsidy. Their Walter was fighting for them. The hon. Member for Leominster called him "Our Walter," and said "I hope that he will convert the other Walter."

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I am happy to say that our Walter has already converted the other Walter.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In those days one Walter had come to the penitent form and wanted the other Walter to come, and he has got him there now. But I wanted to point out the attitude of hon. Members opposite when they are pressing a point for the farmer. We are pressing a point for the farm-worker. The Minister knows that this will not maintain them. He will have them neither strong above the shoulder nor strong below it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: The House will not expect me to speak much on this Amendment, because the issue is really the same as that which was debated for two hours


earlier. The issue is really need or insurance, and I can add nothing more. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Griffiths) knows quite well that we drafted these scales as being the best balanced provision we could make in terms of the financial structure of the Bill. To alter our scheme for the scheme proposed would cost £87,600 a year, and, as I have only £17,000 in a normal year to spare financially, I cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) will not think that his very earnest appeals on particular points have fallen on deaf ears. Every word which has been spoken on practical points I will read and if, as I hope, things go reasonably well, it is the practical points which he has been putting up in Committee and here which will have our attention in the future.

Mr. ADAMSON: Does that mean a reference to the Advisory Committee?

Mr. BROWN: Yes. I mean that it is just the kind of practical point which they will consider when the time comes and there is anything to spare. The hon. Member for Hemsworth raised one point which I thought was a little hard. I started to-day with an hour and a-half of deputation on the differentiation between males and females, and to end the day on the same note was a little hard. The issue as to the differentiation in the scales between men and women is not only a question of scales but of contributions too. The system of insurance has not grown out of theory and logic but out of practice, and in these insurance schemes hon. Members will find that there are grave differentiations between one and the other. The same is true regarding the health benefit schemes of the friendly societies. This Amendment would cost £87,600. I cannot afford it. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will, in his usual fair way, take his own point of view outside the House. We shall take ours. I am satisfied that we have done the best we could and that the countryside will appreciate it at its proper value.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As this is the last opportunity we shall have of expressing ourselves on the question of benefit I

think I ought to repeat in as few words as possible a statement I made in Committee. The hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox), who makes such intelligent contributions to our Debates annually, if ever, is scarcely entitled even to make a sub rosa interjection. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset is not listening, because it would mean casting pearls before some Members of Parliament; I want to keep within the rules of Order or I shall use language that I learned in the first six months I was in a coal mine. I want to say to the Minister that we have not been satisfied from the commencement that the Government have been as generous and decent to the agricultural labourer as they ought to have been. This Amendment would cost £87,000. A penny increase in the Government contribution would more than have covered that £87,000. It seems to me a very small contribution in view of what they are going to save.
Hon. Members have tried to introduce into the Debate the prosperity or otherwise of agriculture. It is not a question of the prosperity or otherwise of agriculture. It is a question of whether or not the worker on the land, as a unit, is of equal value to the State as is the urban worker. We think he is. We think, therefore, that the Government, without even destroying their own theory that there must be a differentiation between the wages and the income of the agricultural labourer and that of the urban worker, might easily have made it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to concede this series of Amendments, which would at least have been an atom of encouragement to the agricultural labourer in the most important years of his life to retain his position on the land.
What is this likely to do? Here is a young man of 21 or 22 who was born on the land and has acquired a knowledge from the cradle upwards of the technique of the land. He desires to remain on the land. He falls unemployed through no fruit of his own for perhaps two, three of four weeks during the year. You give him 14s. a week, out of which he must pay for his food and clothing and his insurance. He must pay for his sports and pastimes. If he goes to Church, he must contribute to the collection. If he drinks beer or smokes, it must all come out of 14s. a.
week. I put it to hon. Members fairly and squarely. Is that the sort of encouragement to give to the type of person that you want to retain on the land? Since 1925 we have lost 131,000 of our agricultural labourers. We fear that, as a result of the Government not stepping forward and helping the right hon. Gentleman to do the decent thing, they are going to be attracted by the posters and the pictures on the hoardings telling them of the brilliance of the cities, because 14s. is wholly insufficient to keep them where they would serve the nation better. We are not putting up a case in any attempt to get political kudos. There is no kudos to be got in the difference between 14s. and 15s. I hope there is no one who pays much attention to the political side of a scheme of this description. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Dorset is not an ordinary Member. He is hopelessly abnormal and we could not expect him to consider anything reasonably.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member, who is obviously extremely acidulated this evening, entitled to make remarks of that kind about me or anyone else?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is as much in order as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to describe the hon. Member as "acidulated."

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should be very disturbed in my mind, indeed, I might lose my beauty sleep, if I said anything really unkind to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I did not think it was possible to say anything unkind to him. We are not asking for a princely income for the agricultural labourer. We are asking for what we regard as the absolute minimum to keep those young men on the land. We want, as much as anyone opposite, to see agriculture prosperous. We do not, therefore, want this so-called individual initiative that is boasted of so frequently from the Conservative benches to carry the young agricultural labourer from the land into the town or the city. We want

that individual initiative displayed on the land. We think the Minister would have done himself justice, would have helped agriculture and would have helped his scheme to receive the welcome that it ought to receive in all parts of the country if he could have accepted the Amendment even if it meant a definite And precise approach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are sorry that he has made no response. We have no alternative but to go into the Lobby against him.

9.42 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: The Minister said, sincerely I am sure, that, although he had to turn down this series of Amendments, he would consider the points which had been made and, if there was a little margin, he would see what could be done at a later stage. From the point of view of the agricultural population there is a rather particular point at which the scale, which I acknowledge he has to put in the Bill, will pinch rather more, probably, than another. There is very little difficulty in young men of 14, 15 or 16 getting employment on the land, but in a very large number of cases they an. out of work again at 18, And a young fellow of 18 costs as much to feed and clothe as one of 21. When you come to the contribution, you make very little differentiation. At 18 he pays 4d. and at 21 he pays 4½d. That is, as near as makes no difference, 90 per cent. There is much more differentiation than that in the scale of benefit. At 18 you give him 10s. 6d., and it goes up to 14s. at 21. If and when anything can be done to improve the Bill, I hope my right hon. Friend will keep in mind the point—I am not talking about the possibility of increasing it all the way along the line; if that can be done, so much the better, but there will be a considerable hardship on the young men of 18 because that is the point at which they lose their jobs, and to be out of a job on only 10s. 6d. would be particularly hard. I hope that will be thought of.
Question put, "That '14s. 0d.' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 121.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Patrick, C. M


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, O.


Beaumont, Hon. ft. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Penny, Sir G.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
peters, Dr. S. J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Petherick, M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Porritt, R. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Harbord, A.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harvey, G.
Radford, E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsbotham, H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hopkinson, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bull, B. B.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Jackson, Sir H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Channon, H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salmon, Sir I.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salt, E. W.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Savery, Servington


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Scott, Lord William


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crookshank, Capt. K. F. C.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cross, R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crossley, A. C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerset, T.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spens, W. P


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Denville, Alfred
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Storey, S.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strickland, captain W. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Mabanc, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Lord C Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dung lass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eckersley, P. T.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maitland, A.
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Elliston, G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Elmley, Viscount
Markham, S. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maxwell, S. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wells, S. R.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Furness, S. N.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wise, A. R.


Gledhill, G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.



Goldie, N. B.
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Commander Southby.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Bevan, A.
Day, H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Broad, F. A.
Dobbie, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bromfield, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Adamson, W. M.
Brooke, W.
Ede, J. C.


Alexander. Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Edwards, A. (Middiesbrough E.)


Ammon, C. G.
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cape, T.
Foot, D. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Chater, D.
Gardner, E. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Barr, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Gibbins, J.


Batey, J.
Cove, W. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Bellenger, F.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Benson, G.
Dalton, H.
Grenfell, D. R.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M-ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Short, A.


Hardie, G. D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Silverman, S. S.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marklew, E.
Simpson, F. B.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Holdsworth, H.
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Holland, A.
Montague, F.
Stephen, C.


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'gh'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hopkin, D.
Muff, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jagger, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Thorne, W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major G.
Thurtle, E.


Kelly, W. T.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, H. J. H.
Viant, S. p.


Kirby, B. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Potts, J.
Walker, J.


Lathan, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawson, J. J.
Qulbell, J. D.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Leach, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lee, F.
Riley, B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Leslie, J. R.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lunn, W.
Rowson, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McEntee, V. La T.
Salter, Dr. A.



McGhee, H. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Croves.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The attitude of the Opposition on this Bill reminds me of a very famous speech of Macaulay, who, when he was a Member of this House, said that,
An acre in Middlesex is better than a principality in Utopia.
I do not pretend that this Bill is Utopian, but it is at least an acre in Middlesex. I rise knowing that it is not necessary for me to say a great deal on the Third Reading, such has been the friendly attitude of the whole House to the Measure. Whatever differences we have had—and there have been some differences—the whole House knows that, this is a Measure which is overdue, and even those who disagree that it is overdue will agree that it is due. I will in a few sentences sum up how the Bill stands and what it is. It is based on three assumptions. The first is that it will bring into unemployment insurance 750,000 land workers, men and women. The second, that the average rate of unemployment will be 7½ per cent., and, third, that there will be about 15 per cent, of long term hirings. If these assumptions turn out to be accurate, the effect will be that there will he 21,706,000 coming in and, since the alteration in the children's benefit has been made, it is expected that £1,689,000 a year will he paid in benefit and administration. As to the structure of the Bill there is one Insurance Fund and two accounts. The agricultural account is quite separate

from the industrial account, and if at any time there are borrowings between the two, interest will be paid by whichever side is the borrower.
This has been one of the most difficult problems of our time. It has engaged the attention of statesmen, landowners, farmers, land-workers, and all concerned with the countryside for the best part of the last generation, and while no one ever hopes that there will be anything like the last word in this kind of social legislation I think I can say that so far as this Bill is concerned three things have happened. First, we have made a good many improvements as to its applications in detail during its progress through the House, and on the points which have been brought to our attention we have done our best to deal with them so that the Bill has been made more workable. Second, there has been a slight increase in benefits to children amounting to £14,000; 6d. extra for each child after the first child; and, third, we have taken power, in Clause 13 so that should the Statutory Committee after they have heard the evidence decide that private gardeners should be brought into the scheme, the Minister will have power by order to include them within the agricultural scheme without the necessity of introducing a further Bill. Those are the main alterations. The role of a reformer is always very difficult. He has to solve the problem, and in solving the problem he sets a standard. In doing so he creates a whole tribe of Oliver Twists, always asking for a higher standard than that which he has laid down. That is


the hard lot of anyone who makes a forward movement. I do not complain, but I do claim that the scheme is badly needed in many parts of the country. It ends the position of inferiority which has been deeply felt among land-workers for the last generation, and whatever may be said in political debates, the Bill will be warmly welcomed up and down the country in hundreds and thousands of homes.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) makes a distinction between the urban and rural worker. I do not think that is the right distinction. The real problem is the difference between the primary worker and other workers. He knows as well as I do that it is as difficult to do all we would like to do for the miner in the pit and the fisherman on the sea as it is for the landworker. He being a. miner's son and I a fisherman's son know that the real problem is not that of town and country: the difference is between men who are working on the land in the primary industries of this country and in the other industries. In asking the House to give the Bill a Third Reading I do so knowing that it is important to many obscure folk who live in our villages. They follow the most ancient, the most worthy and the most vital of our industries—agriculture. Occasionally, but only occasionally, they have found a voice, like William Cobbett, a good Conservative, or Joseph Arch, an equally sturdy Radical, but for the most part they are unrecorded men who give us our daily food as the result of their patient industry. A man who knew them best and wrote the finest poem for 300 years said:
A man who a thousand years ago, as now,
Has brought his brother bread,
Regardless how the bread was shared.
These men in a, thousand villages are unrecorded, but I am sure I am voicing their views when I say that they will bless this Parliament for a wise reform.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon moving the Third Reading of what is his major Measure since he occupied his present position. I want to say how we appreciated his helpfulness during the Committee and Report stages, for he never

hesitated to warn us of forthcoming Amendments. To that extent his courtesy has been unique, and I can only hope that he will have as much success with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he has had in the House. We are also anxious for the welfare and wellbeing of agriculture, and despite the shortcomings of the Measure we think it may have a very real influence in certain directions in the countryside. The Minister has said that agricultural labourers have been without a voice in the past. They have a voice in England in Mr. William Holmes, the National Secretary of the Agricultural Workers' Union, and in Scotland in Mr. Duncan, the trade union secretary, and these two representatives of the workers, as far as the Bill is concerned, will do their level best to see that it is made to run as smoothly as possible.
While we welcome the Measure as a gesture we still lament the obvious meanness of the Treasury as displayed in the benefits. I do not propose to cover again the points already made, but a, benefit of 14s. is wholly inadequate, 21s. for a man and wife is equally ii adequate, and 30s. for a man, wife and three children is also inadequate. We can only hope that these benefits will be improved and brought nearer to the desires and needs of the section of the community for which they are intended. I know that for 15 years the Agricultural Workers' Union have been advocating a scheme of this description to cover their section of the community, just as other sections of the community have been cared for to some extent, and they will take this Bill as the first step leading towards the independence of the agricultural labourer in this country. Just as the Union will be willing to accept the scheme in that sense, so will the labourers who have been subject to disabilities for so long grasp at this Measure with all its shortcomings, both in machinery and in benefits. There are one or two regrets I would like to express. I am afraid that the Minister will live to regret that Clause 10 is part of the Bill. Clause 13, which was added in Committee, does certainly give the Minister power to deal with a large section of the working community, but I regret that it was not made flexible enough, so that if the Statutory Committee did discover that it is desirable to include private gardeners in this insurance scheme the Minister would be able


to include them in either one or the other of the two Unemployment Insurance schemes.
As it is, the power taken by the Minister merely enables him by means of an order to bring private gardeners into the agricultural scheme. There must be in this City and in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and other big towns a large army of private gardeners whose wages are out of all proportion to the wages received by agricultural labourers. They can only be brought within this special scheme with specially small contributions and specially small benefits which will not be very helpful to them. Therefore, I should have been glad if the Minister had made this Clause wider so that he could have brought them under the principal Act.

Mr. E. BROWN: It is outside the long Title. It would require new legislation to do that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I can only say that I think it is very regrettable. It would be, I think, a wise thing to obviate the necessity for a Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading where 126,000 workers are concerned if there is a clear indication in all parts of the House of a desire that they should be brought into the scheme. The details of this Measure are by no means what we think they ought to be, and I repeat that we think that the Treasury have been mean to the agricultural labourer. Therefore, while we wish the Measure well we hope the time is not far distant when events will force big improvements in the scheme, and we hope that the agricultural labourers, once they have realised that they do enjoy a certain independence as a result of this Measure, will make full use of that independence and become politically, economically and socially free men, as some at least of us in this House would desire to see them. I congratulate the Minister on his first big Measure, and while lamenting its weaknesses I wish him well.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. MAXWELL: I think it is unusual for a Member to make his maiden speech on the Third Reading of a Bill, and I only do so because this matter is one of vital importance to a large number of the constituents whom I represent in this

House. I hope that if I unwittingly, through ignorance, stray from the narrow confines of a Third Reading Debate I may be excused. I am told that it is not a difficult thing to do, and I can believe that, having listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), who, no doubt, has great experience, dealing with the difficulties of tramp shipping, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Grippe), who managed to keep in order on tramp shipping and at the same time make an eloquent contribution on the whole of the defects of the capitalist system. It is almost dull to get up and talk on such an uncontroversial subject as that with which we are dealing to-night. The hon. Member who has just sat down has poured oil on waters which might have been bubbling in the House at this moment. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary for me to dwell for more than a moment on some of the criticisms which have been brought against this Bill.
It seems to me that the one issue on which the Bill has been debated in all its stages has been that of the low scale of benefits. Nobody regrets that low scale more than I do, but I think we must remember that if we are going to have an insurance scheme—and this is an insurance scheme, in spite of some of the quibbles of hon. Members opposite—we must set a limit to the benefits that can be paid. Benefits, after all, do depend on contributions, and contributions must depend on wages. The remedy for the low scale of benefits is not to amend this Bill but to raise wages. If hon. Members will collaborate in the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture in that direction, I think they will be much more likely to achieve the object they have in view than by moving Amendments to this Bill. If we get increased wages we shall have not only better employment and less unemployment, but the finances of the scheme will be improved and there will be a very good chance of getting improved benefits.
I welcome this Bill as one of vast importance and one which is welcomed, I believe, by large numbers of the agricultural population. But I hope it will never be considered to be a substitute for employment. I could not help feeling this afternoon when I listened to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), discoursing on the iniquity of having a


maximum benefit, that if he had his way and there was no maximum benefit there might be a danger of this scheme being regarded as a substitute for employment.
I have said that this Bill has the approval of most of those concerned in agriculture. One has to talk locally on these matters, and I have found in my part of the country at any rate that farmers have been as pleased to welcome the Bill as have agricultural labourers. The Bill, I believe, will attain what is its primary object, and that is to improve the conditions of the workers in agriculture. All Members of this House are concerned, I know, that agricultural labourers should be treated on the same principle as workers in all other industries. Everybody knows how much those workers dislike public assistance. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the dislike among rural workers of having to do what they feel is ignominious, that is, to ask for public assistance.
An extremely important and interesting point was raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and discussed at considerable length. It was whether public assistance authorities will supplement the benefits. That is a question which I think deserves an answer, for it will be the crux of whether or not these benefits will be a blessing. I was rather surprised, however, that hon. Members who were comparing the rates of public assistance with the rates of benefit under this Bill entirely neglected to mention the fact that public assistance is subject to a means test and therefore it is not by any means on all occasions that the full rates of public assistance are paid to the applicant. I consider it is only fair when comparing the two that that should be borne in mind.
I have said that the workers are generally anxious to contribute to insurance, and I believe that to be the case. They want a scheme which entitles them to benefit rather than that they should have to ask for it. The other thing which they dislike so intensely under the present system is test work, which I do not believe to be satisfactory to anybody. It can happen that a skilled workman finds himself working beside a man who is inferior in skill, and he sees that unskilled man probably being paid more than he is getting himself. Sometimes the men

have to do work which is completely useless, and I know of a stone pit where the stones, when brought out of the pit, were not even used on the local roads. I cannot imagine anything more disheartening to skilled workers than having to work under such conditions.
The secondary object of this Bill, and an extremely important one it seems to me, is to stop the tendency for skilled agricultural labourers to drift into the towns, and inasmuch as the Bill will lessen that spirit of inferiority which in some cases may exist, it will achieve some degree of success. But this will be only a nibble at the problem, for there is no doubt that the drift from the country to the towns goes a great deal deeper than that. The crux of the matter is that agricultural wages do not at the moment compare with the wages in other industries, and as long as that situation exists the enterprising young men are bound to tend to go into the towns. This tendency is instanced by the fact that only last week the North Biding branch of the National Farmers' Union sent to the committee in London a plea that catchments boards should recruit their labour from the distressed areas and not from agriculture, because it was becoming so difficult to keep agricultural labourers in their districts. Therefore this question is a most important one, and one which has to be faced at the earliest opportunity.
Another reason why men drift to the towns nowadays is that communications have become very much better. Buses run from villages into the neighboring county town, and when village people are so much more closely connected with their urban neighbors, they are bound to compare the rates of wages in town and country. This question of the scarcity of labour, which only arises in certain districts, because agricultural labour does not flow easily from one place to another, may become serious, especially having regard to the possibility that the Government will, as we hope, take up the question of food production in relation to their defense problems. A fear has been expressed during the Debates on this Bill that it may lead to the casualisation of agricultural labour. Those hon. Members who know the countryside would, I am sure, agree that labour in agriculture has already to a large extent become


casualised. At least it has become seasonal. There are, at present, skilled men who can only get work at certain months of the year.
I feel that those are the men whom we particularly desire to help by this Bill. They are not at all inferior men. They are probably equal, or nearly equal, in skill to some of those key-men of whom we have heard to-day and who may, perhaps, grumble at having to pay contributions for which they are not likely to receive anything. The whole system of insurance, however, is that the fortunate man should contribute something towards helping the unfortunate man, and I agree with many hon. Members opposite that there is no real cause for the man who is fortunate enough to have a good steady job, to grumble because he has to pay contributions. I am glad to see that the Government have fixed the necessary number of contributions as low as 20. There are numbers of men like those I have just described, who only get about 22 weeks work in the year. They get about eight weeks hoeing, four weeks harvesting, and perhaps 10 weeks work at the sugar beet crop. As the Bill stands, those men would become eligible for benefit next winter, and that is the time when they will be greatly in need of it.
Reference has also been made to the shirker or hanger-on of the agricultural industry, and it has been suggested that he may cripple the finance of the scheme by becoming a parasite upon it. I do not think that is likely to happen. It seems to me that when the long-awaited second appointed day arrives and Part II of the Unemployment Act comes into operation, he is more likely to become a hanger-on of the unemployment assistance authorities than to be an applicant for benefit under this Measure. The point as to the second appointed day struck me as being very important. It was mentioned, I think, by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). It will be very awkward when the second appointed day comes and you have fixed your rates of unemployment assistance, and I agree that we shall require a good deal of enlightenment from the Parliamentary Secretary or from somebody else as to how that difficulty is to be met.
There is, however, only one real danger, to my mind, in connection with the Bill, and that is the possibility of something

happening which would spoil the spirit of it and also spoil its operation—that is if either the farmer or the labourer were to try to avoid contributions, one at the expense of the other. It might happen, and I can even envisage a situation where a wages board might take into consideration the fact either that the labourer had to pay 4½d. more, and use it as an argument for raising wages, or that the farmer had to pay 4½d. more, and use that as an argument for reducing wages. Either would be equally wrong and would ruin the entire spirit of the Bill. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to include a Clause whereby gardeners may come under this Bill. There are, after all, some 126,000 of them, and they form an important part of the rural community, and I have always felt that this Bill was really intended to benefit the whole rural community rather than any one particular section of it.
After I was elected to this House at the General Election, a newspaper was rude enough to say that I represented huntin' and shootin', and it wondered what good I was going to do for either. I feel strongly tempted to try to do a bit of good for the gamekeeper at this moment, but I feel that I might be ruled out of order if I did. I support this Bill whole-heartedly, and I believe it has the unanimous support of the House in principle, except perhaps for hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite; and with all due respect from a young Member, I wonder whether it is perhaps that they are not quite moving with the times. It has been suggested, I think wrongly, that the old and friendly relationship between employer and employed in the countryside is passing. I should be very sorry indeed to think that by voting for this Bill I was in any way hastening that end.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. QUIBELL: May I first of all congratulate the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell) on his excellent maiden speech, which was very useful and interesting, coming as he does from an agricultural area. It was a speech that interested us on this side very much, because I presume that there is at least a majority of our people in this House whose families at one time or other were associated either directly or indirectly


with this major industry. I am pleased to think that there is unanimity on the other side of the House, although I admit that the treatment meted out to this Bill in Committee has disappointed me very much indeed.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I looked at the faces of hon. Members opposite, and I thought there were some hopes for the Bill emerging from the Committee stage a better Bill than when it went into Committee, but after the generous treatment that has been meted out to it by the Minister and those responsible for the Government, I am tremendously disappointed, even more than I was on the Second Reading, for I find that in place of the 3s. for the first child and 2s. 6d. for the next two children, they have magnanimously given 6d. to the second and 6d. to the third, and if there is a fourth, it gets nothing. All that I can say is that after all the efforts on this side and on that to improve the character of the Bill, the total result of it is measured by two sixpences if there happens to be a family of three. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, but I know that when he occupied a seat on this side he would have been far from satisfied at being associated with a Measure which had emerged from the Committee stage, after such a number of hours spent upon it, in the state in which this Bill has emerged.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House have made considerable play in certain parts of the country of the fact that I and some of my friends thought it right to vote for the Second Reading of this Measure. For 20 years, even before the Agricultural Workers' Union believed in the principal of insurance for the agricultural labourer, I have been agitating for it in Lincolnshire. It was, therefore, not I who voted with the Government, but the Government who voted with me. I had hoped that with the improvement that might be made to this Bill in Committee we could have been unanimous in passing it and in bringing the agricultural workers in common partnership with the rest of the industrial workers. It will be difficult for us on this side to swallow the small concessions that have been granted during the Committee stage. Let us take the question of 10s. 6d. a week for men from 18 to 21. An hon. Member said

that if he took his daughter to a restaurant he could get a lunch for 1s. 3d. A man on this benefit could only go once a day. He could not be kept at the commonest lodging house for 10s. 6d. a week.
This is the Measure of the practical sympathy that the Government have for these men. The Government have for half a century, and particularly during the last 30 or 40 years, derived the major part of their power from the countryside. This is the measure of their appreciation of those who supported them. The Minister adroitly avoided a pertinent question put to him from this side whether in the case of a big family, where the maximum was 30s. a week, the public assistance committee would be empowered to come to their aid. I can visualise conditions where the rent might be 7s. or 9s. a week and where there would be little left for food in the case of a big family. The right hon. Gentleman cleverly avoided being definite about that matter. I suppose that his excuse would be that this is not the occasion when he could give a definite answer or commit the Government. Some of us have had experience of these committees and I can give him the answer. The answer is that it is a thousand to one that if this class of man appeals to the public assistance committee, at least in Lindsey, no assistance would be given. I have heard it said on both sides of the House that some of the agricultural labourers in rural England would be as well off when the second appointed day came, in fact, better off, because they would not be paying contributions into an insurance scheme and would draw better benefits without this Bill.
I have here a letter, which I shall be glad to hand to the Minister, describing the case of a man with a wife and five children in the Lindsey area who gets 12s. in kind and 10s. in money per week from the public assistance authorities. He has to work four days a week on test work, being engaged in strengthening the bank of a river, and has to cycle between five and six miles to his work. Things may be different in some parts of England, but I would sooner have this Bill than leave people under conditions such as are being imposed on agricultural workers in my county, although at the same time I shall always use all my power and influence to see that a greater


measure of justice is done to agricultural workers than is provided by this particular Bill. At one time there was a great deal of criticism over the proposal which came to be known as "9d. for 4d." and was associated with the phrase "Rare and refreshing fruit." Here it is not a case of 9d. for 4d., but of 4½d. from the employer, 4½d. from the workman and 4½d. from the State.
The original proposals in regard to this matter provided that there should be a certain contribution from the workman and a certain contribution from the employer and that the contribution from the State should be equal to them both. If the Government's proposals had been as generous as those we should have had no fault to find with this Bill. I feel that this Government is almost past hope, but I do venture to hope that when the opportunity presents itself the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the powers which this Bill confers upon him in order to increase the benefits to some of those who now come under its operations. If he will do that we on this side of the House shall welcome his action. As the Bill stands I am tremendously disappointed with it, but, all the same, I would much rather have it than see my people dependent on the good will of public assistance authorities such as are to be found in rural England who will impose upon agricultural workers conditions like those described in the letter which I have produced.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: As I was prevented by illness from being present at the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to take this opportunity to stress the point of view of the people whom I represent. The Minister has referred to the improved status; which this Bill will give to farm workers, and that is one of the points in connection with the Bill with which I agree. He also said the Bill is badly needed in many parts of the country, and there arises the difficulty in which some of us find ourselves to-night. We do not for one moment want to prevent agricultural labourers from having an insurance scheme if it will be for their benefit but in the part of the country from which I come there is a growing anxiety about it, because the number of people engaged in agriculture there and who are out of work is very small, and the feeling is that the Bill

will benefit other districts in Great Britain for which they will have to pay. This is no mere case of Scottish meanness, as some hon. Members may think. In the North of Scotland we are facing an extremely difficult period at the present time, owing to recent agricultural legislation. This matter is vital to us. We are looking at it not merely from a purely selfish or narrow point of view. That is one difficulty.
The other difficulty is that the Bill may undermine our long-term hiring system. There is a fear that the benefits suggested for the long-term hiring system will not be sufficient to prevent the disintegration of that system. Anybody who knows our system of long-term hiring would regret its being broken up. I feel that it would be wrong if I did not express my anxiety on those two points of the Bill. On other grounds I welcome it, and I hope that it will bring to the agricultural worker the great benefits which the Minister and hon. Member appear to think it will bring. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) after his extremely excellent electioneering speech. I am expressing what I believe to be the view of my part of the world, which is that there are in the Bill dangers which it will be the duty of representatives of that part of the world to watch very closely. I tell the Minister that we shall do our best by question, when the Bill is in operation, to see that while it is for the benefit of other parts of Britain, that benefit is not gained entirely at the expense of the North.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: On this side of the House we are gratified that the Bill has reached its last stage in the assembly of the elected representatives. We accept the assurance of the Minister that many of the, I trust convincing, pleas, and the cases that have been submitted to him, which we have put up during the Committee and Report stages will receive consideration. We are bound to recognise that a Measure of insurance, I trust only the beginning, has been applied to agriculture. I take it that it is not, even from the Minister's point of view the last word in what can be done for the agricultural and rural worker. However the poets may have sung of the sons of toil who till the soil and sow the seed and reap the harvest, the countryside has


been the cinderella of industry, and under the scheme it will still be, to use more vulgar language, the bottom dog.
Although we can approve of this Measure, we cannot be satisfied with it, because of the differentiation it brings into unemployment insurance and of the comparisons that are made in contributions and benefits. We who have had long experience in agricultural organising, sometimes wonder whether hon. Members who go to the Agricultural Hall to see milking competitions and to admire the beautiful cattle and the dairymaids, would be satisfied if they knew that the wonderfully skilled dairymaids had to live on 6s. per week, if they were under 18 years of age and became unemployed. Would that be the practical indication of what their admiration really meant? Everybody recognises that agriculture is a changing occupation, and that it is difficult to compare, say, the grazing and milk-producing counties with those which of recent years have been adapting themselves to varying conditions in the growing of grain and sugar beet. From this point of view, it is important that we should now have an unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture, to help to solve some of the problems that have been arising during recent years.
I hope that, when the Minister gets over this hurdle, as the son of a fisherman his next responsible duty will be to weigh up the evidence which has been submitted to him on behalf of the share fishermen, and that his next Measure will be one for the fishing industry, but with even better benefits than he is now providing for agriculture. We welcome this scheme as a first step, which we hope will gradually be absorbed in a general scheme applicable to town and rural workers alike, to the advantage of all and to the disadvantage of none. It is not possible to differentiate between the various counties and the various districts; we must look upon agriculture in all its phases, so that those who are in regular employment may assist those who in other counties where the conditions are not so good, are more unfortunate, so that they may have the advantages of the operation of this scheme.

10.48 p.m.

Sir R. W. SMITH: I feel that I cannot allow this Bill to go to its Third Reading without protesting against the application of the Bill to Scotland, and certainly to that part of Scotland which I have the honour to represent. I think I may say that I have the right to speak for a fairly large number of agricultural workers, for in Aberdeenshire alone there are no fewer than 14,000 out of a total of 112,000 for the whole of Scotland, and the industry in that district is, as everybody knows, almost entirely dependent on stock-raising for its welfare. I do not say that the time may not come when it would be possible to have an unemployment insurance scheme for agriculture in that part of Scotland, but I say that at present the time is not ripe. The Minister has stated that the scheme is a workable one, and no doubt it is, but I think that a scheme, if it is to be a proper scheme, must be something more than workable—it must be just, and its burdens must fall fairly on the shoulders best able to bear them. The Minister also said that the scheme was warmly welcomed by thousands of workers. I quite believe that it was. Certainly the workers in the district of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell), who made his maiden speech to-night, desire it, and I believe it is also desired in parts of Scotland, but still there are large parts of Scotland where it is not welcomed by the agricutural workers.
Reference has already been made to Mr. Duncan and the number of meetings he addressed before the last Election. No doubt he did report that there were a large number at those meetings who were in favour of this scheme. But who attended those meetings? They were not the old, stable agricultural workers; they were the young men who, if they could find something better would leave the agricultural industry. The Government have not made the inquiries that they should have made before bringing in this scheme. We are told by the Beveridge Committee that there are no statistical records which in any way make it possible to judge the volume of unemployment in agriculture. If you are to have a proper scheme, you ought to know as nearly as you can the proportion of unemployment in agriculture. Why have we not been finding out during the last few years


what the position was in various parts of the country? The Government have not made the necessary inquiries with regard to Scotland and the proportion of unemployed there. The Government have accepted the Beveridge Committee Report without making the inquiries that should have been made into the position. On page 45 they say:
We are satisfied that the greater part of the agricultural workers are not only willing but anxious to pay contributions for insurance against unemployment.
And they go on:
As regards the employers, the contribution required is smaller in proportion to their wages bill than in many other industries.
That is not much good to the farmer in Scotland, who in many cases is not paying his wages out of profits but out of capital. We hear a great deal about the fortunate having to contribute to the unfortunate. I am quite agreeable to that, but will anyone tell me it is fair that a man who is earning a wage of 28s. 2d. a week, as a single farmworker is in Scotland, should have to pay to keep solvent a fund to which gardeners in public parks and men working in seeds-men's warehouses, who are making £2 10s. and £3 a week and probably more, contribute? This scheme has not been as carefully considered as it should have been by the Government before they introduced this Measure.
The hon. Member for West Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) mentioned that at the present time the position of the agricultural industry in Scotland is serious. Is it fair to put a further burden upon their shoulders when those engaged in the industry are not making profits? It would have been totally different if they had been making profits or if the farm workers had been getting higher wages, but wages have been falling. Farmers asked me at the last election what was my view of unemployment insurance and I said I was opposed to it under present conditions in Scotland.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I do not suppose I have more than half a dozen agricultural labourers in my constituency but the Minister of Labour will shortly be bringing before the House regulations relating to unemployment assistance. I represent

a constituency in which more than 60 per cent. of the insurable population in some parts are out of work and I am concerned about losing 45,000 allies when I come to face the Minister of Labour in a few months' time, because there are 40,000 to 50,000 unemployed agricultural workers in Great Britain, all of whom, when the second appointed day comes into operation, will be chargeable to the same authority that will be responsible for my unemployed constituents. What the Minister proposes to do by this Bill has deprived me of a substantial number of allies. I am entitled to ask whether he is taking those allies in circumstances which will benefit my constituents. Hon. Member's opposite have argued that the Bill is a boon to the agricultural labourer and, no doubt, many of my hon. Friends are right when they say the agricultural worker ardently desires it, much as he may deplore its shortcomings, but I believe it is because the agricultural labourer is misinformed about the actual position of the law in relation to himself, because when the Minister brings the unemployed agricultural labourer under the protection of the National Board, he will have to make regulations for him as well as for any unemployed constituents.
Hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies—and a very large number of the supporters of the Government are drawn from agricultural constituencies—will, if the Bill does not pass, be vitally interested in those Regulations. If the Bill goes through, they will no longer have any interest in them, and representatives of the industrial constituencies will be deprived of the pressure they would bring generally upon the Ministry of Labour. From the point of view of the industrial worker, we are, by this Measure, being deprived of protection that we might enjoy, and the Minister is relieving himself of the pressure which would otherwise be brought to bear upon him.
It is because that is the situation that the Government have surprisingly become converts to agricultural insurance. It is not because the case for agricultural insurance is better now than it was. The case is no stronger for unemployment insurance for the agricultural worker today than it has ever been. In fact, it is weaker. The reason why the Government


are bringing forward the Measure is because they want it to he the shock absorber between a large body of their supporters and unemployed constituents. If this Measure were not carried the agricultural workers would be able to go to their agricultural Conservative Members and ask for protection against the bad regulations of the National Board, but by this Measure the agricultural Parliamentary representative is able to plead the tactics of the actuarial gods in extenuation of alleviating the agricultural worker. He will be able to say, "The reason why the benefit is only 14s. or 21s. a week is because the fund has to balance. If you want more, the contributions will have to be increased, and that is the reason why we are where we are."
Therefore, the reason why the Government have come forward to settle agricultural unemployment insurance is not because their hearts have been moved in favour of the agricultural worker, but because it is politically expedient to do it now, and because, at the same time, the Treasury are going to gain £1,000,000 by doing so. On the second Appointed Day the agricultural worker will go from off the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This puts him off the shoulders of the taxpayers on to the shoulders of the countryside. If Members of this House are in favour of the countryside taking £1,200,000 more than they need, it is because of the fact that by doing it they will have protection against the agitation of unemployed, agricultural workers. If the unemployed agricultural worker comes to the board he is under the means test. If the Government were prepared to abolish the means test, the agricultural unemployed worker would have the benefit of higher scales of pay without the need of having to pay £600,000 a year for lower benefits.
This is a device on the part of the Government to fob off the agricultural worker with lower scales of benefit for which he finds £600,000 a year in order to provide Conservative Members of Parliament with an alibi against their own constituents. The Government have a very difficult case to make out when they try to prove that the Bill has been brought forward in the interests of the agricultural worker. The argument that the finances of the Unemployment Insurance Fund are inadequate to pay

higher scales of benefit to agricultural workers is completely false. About £6,000,000 is being received in excess of outgoings. Nevertheless the one plea which the Minister has always put forward is that the finances of the scheme will not allow higher rates of benefit. He has not defended the rates of benefit on the ground that they are adequate. In addition to the £1,000,000 which the Treasury will make net of this transaction, they are going to present themselves with £2,000,000 out of the general scheme; £3,000,000 altogether which could be used to supplement the agricultural workers rates of benefit.
I do not propose to go into the Lobby against the Bill, because those who speak for agriculture believe that it is going to confer benefits on the agricultural worker. I believe that in six months time they will be disillusioned. I believe that the lower rates of benefit will have a depressing effect on standards of living in areas bordering on rural areas. In some parts of South Wales where the public assistance committee are paying rates on the same scale as the benefits paid under the general scheme, these scales will result in the rates being substantially lowered. In this sort of legislation there is always the danger of the lower scale driving out the higher. There is always a tendency, where you have two scales of benefit for the same class of workers, for the lower scale to assert itself, and I protest that the House of Commons should consider that 14s. and 21s. for a man and wife are sufficient upon which to live.
I sit down with this challenge. If hon. Members opposite declare that they do not believe that the scales of benefit in this Bill are sufficient to meet the needs of the unemployed agricultural worker, I challenge them to state from what other source that scale is to be augmented. That has not been replied to. The Minister dare not get up and declare that it would be the function of the National Board to supplement these scales. He knows that if he did so the whole of unemployment insurance in this country would be disorganised. Hon. Members are declaring by this Bill that British men and women shall live on 14s. a week, and that the maximum shall be 30s. They are actually saying that where public assistance committees are paying more than the scales in this Bill that the.


public assistance scale shall be lowered. I believe that when the full facts are known in the countryside not only will there be diminishing enthusiasm for the Bill, but in a year's time there will be actual hostility. I, for one, will never allow my name to be associated with a proposal that English men and women shall be paid a miserable scale of 21s. a week.

11.13 p.m.

Major MILLS: I am in favour of the principle of insurance for agricultural labourers, and I would like to congratulate the Minister on having introduced the Bill so promptly and piloted it so skilfully because time is of the essence of the contract. It is quite obvious that if the people to benefit under this scheme are to draw these benefits next winter the matter must be dealt with at once. I took some trouble last spring to find out what my constituents really thought on this question, and I found that the Agricultural Workers Union were very keen about it, but otherwise there was no great enthusiasm expressed on the subject except by gardeners and chauffeurs who are not included in the Bill. They really did want it and for that reason I am glad their inclusion has been referred to the statutory committee. People in the New Forest are commonly supposed to be of a rather conservative turn of mind. I would like to tell my right hon. Friend that that is a delusion. They are most wideawake, up to date, and progressive. I am informed that parents are already reluctant to allow their children to go into gardening because in doing so they enter a part of the agricultural industry which is not to be insured—so carefully do these people study the proposals of my right hon. Friend. Earlier in the evening, I understood the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to say that, far from being an attraction to people to stay in the industry, the Bill would drive the best people out of agriculture. It seems to me that the opposite has already occurred, and that the best people, masses of whom live in the New Forest, are regarding it as a great attraction.
I recognise the difficulties which face my right hon. Friend. There are, for instance, the borderline cases, the gardener who sometimes takes the car to

meet his master at the station and the chauffeur or butler who sometimes takes a little light exercise in the garden. I am also aware of the difficulties that would lie ahead of me if I wanted, which I do not, to pursue the matter in any detail. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have made the concession off his own hat, but as he was not able to do so, I think he has done the best thing by referring it to the Statutory Committee. There will be some delay, but there will not be very much. I would like to conclude by congratulating once more my right hon. Friend on carrying out this Election pledge of the National Government, and on giving the best benefits that the Finances of the scheme could possibly give at present.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In these days I must confess that I am becoming more and more of the opinion that in politics there is little difference on any side of this House. I say frankly that from questions of foreign affairs and sanctions down to questions of unemployment insurance, although I often see great differences on matters of detail, there is little that I see of difference on principle. To-night the Farmers' Union, the Government and the Labour party are united on this Bill. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) delivered a very clever and eloquent speech denouncing the Bill and the figures contained in it. Let him not forget that his party intend to vote with the Government for 14s. 0d. a week for a man. To-night we are to see the spectacle of the Labour party voting for 6s. 0d. a week for a woman. To-night my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) sees the united front extended. On this Bill, voting for rates that have been condemned over and over again, we are to see the party opposite and the Labour party walk into the Lobby together.
I want to say to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that if he believes, as I do, that he is right in saying that before long this Bill will have a depressing and not an uplifting effect, why should he wait for six months 4 If I believe that at the present time, then it is my duty to stop the Bill having a depressing effect on anybody by voting against it now. On the Second Reading Debate, those who spoke for the Labour party said, in effect, that if this Bill were not improved


on Second Reading, they must reserve to themselves the right to vote against it on Third Reading. There have been two changes, the one making the Bill worse and the other making it slightly better. One of the changes, explained to us as being an improvement, concerns private gardeners. The Statutory Committee will be able to recommend to the Minister that private gardeners should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Private gardeners are not agricultural workers. The overwhelming bulk of them are employed in towns, alongside townspeople. They ought to come under the general scheme. Things are being made worse by having sections of townspeople brought into a scheme with which they have little contact.
The only other concession which has been made and which has, apparently, altered the views of my hon. Friends above the Gangway and caused them to support the Bill is the concession about children. A man with three children is to get an increase of one shilling a week. If he has only one child he gets no increase; if he has two children he gets an increase of sixpence and if he has more than three children, he still only gets the increase of one shilling. For that, the Labour party are prepared to support the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill as much as ever. I see greater dangers in it even than those foreseen by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). What are the facts? In unemployment insurance not only agricultural workers and private gardeners but domestic servants and black-coated workers and railwaymen were left out of the general scheme. By passing this Bill we are in effect agreeing to the black-coated workers, the railwaymen, the domestic servants and other sections being in different schemes. I would not be opposing this Measure so bitterly, though I should still be opposing it, if it was only legislating for farm workers but it goes far beyond them. It affects seeds-men like the people employed by Dobbie's of Edinburgh—hundreds of them—Carter's at Baynes Park, Sutton's at Reading, and others. Every public park employé is to-day an agricultural worker and is covered by this proposal. We are saying to the public park employés of Dundee, Glasgow and London, "Your rates of benefit in the future shall be 14s.

for a man and 7s. for a woman with a 30s. maximum.
The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) said the Bill meant an improvement for the agricultural worker who formerly had to go on public assistance. He said the public assistance authorities in his district would have to pay less. That is about the strangest argument I have heard to show that the Bill is not an improvement. Whatever can be said on Part II of the Unemployment Act, it took them away front public assistance and made them chargeable, and if the hon. Member and his party believed that, they ought not to have voted against Part II. To-day we are erecting a thing that I think will stand more than ever in years to come. If ever the Labour party take office again, I am certain that they and almost any new Government taking office will almost inevitably abolish the means test, and when that is abolished, as I think it must be in the near future, what will be the result? Part II will go, and then you will have got them all covered by an insurance scheme, and the only augmentation allowed will be Poor Law augmentation which is nil. You will have living alongside each other two sets of people, one on a 30s. standard, with a family of five or six, and the other on a standard of £2 or £2 4s. To that, I think, there is no answer. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell) made a good speech, but might I ask him to stop using terms like "shirkers"? It is a shocking thing to do. All of us can sneer at these poor folk, but it is not nice or fair. Anyone can sneer, and I do ask the hon. Member not to use such phrases again. He said, in regard to seasonal workers, that they will come in.

Mr. MAXWELL: The hon. Member must have mistaken my meaning. When I talked about shirkers, I was making the point that the seasonal workers and the casual workers whom we are trying to help in this Bill are not by any means shirkers, but very often extremely good and skilled workmen.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but the hon. Member is wrong about the seasonal workers being undo this Bill; they are dealt with under the ordinary law, and the person the hon. Member described as getting so much beet sugar work in a season will be disqualified under the


Seasonal Workers' Regulation. This Bill does not abolish another Act, called the Seasonal Workers' Act.

Mr. MAXWELL: I think the hon. Member is wrong when he suggests that. If he reads the Bill, he will see that the man who is employed solely in harvesting will not be eligible under this Bill, but the man who does sugar-beet work, which entails hoeing in the early part of the season, will be entitled to benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let my hon. Friend take this from me—and in these matters I am generally nearer right than most—or let him take the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary, and what he says I will abide by, but I know he will say that the Seasonal Workers Act is not repealed. What Sir William Beveridge did in his report was to recommend that seasonal regulations should not apply. But that has not been put into this Bill, and if I am wrong, the Parliamentary Secreretary can correct me when he replies. In conclusion, we have been a good deal sneered at. I remember on the Second Reading a Conservative Member called us impossible, and the Parliamentary Secretary dismissed us with a sneer, saying it did not matter what we said, they would find it wrong. I do not deny these things. To some extent we are liable to be kicked, but it is not always easy to occupy our rôle, and we cannot divide to-night for two reasons. One is that I have a good deal of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and it would be wrong to put you to the inconvenience of a Division if there were only three of us dividing against the Bill. If I were sure of collecting eight Members to go in the Lobby with us, I would divide against the Bill. If Members of the Labour party were free men, and were allowed to vote as their constituents wished them to vote, there would be more than eight who would go into the Lobby with us. To-night, however, it is not the Labour party that is deciding, but the Trade Union Congress. They have told Members of the Labour party what to do and to-night Members do not represent their divisions but a caucus. To me this Bill is shockingly bad and indefensible. There is only one argument that the Minister can put up and that is that the Bill is better than what the agricultural workers' trade union asked for. I admit

it is better, and that is why I have not supported that union. I would not support a union that asked for 2s. for a child in 1935 at a time when Tories in this House had actually voted for 3s. For that union to determine my conduct at a time when it asks for scales of benefit—

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent the Agricultural Workers' Union, but I think he must have misunderstood the position. The scale referred to, including 2s. for children, was sent to the Statutory Committee when the payment under the general scheme was 2s. It was subsequently that it, was raised to 3s.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It was asked for by the union after Tories had voted for 3s. Is that union to define our conduct on this Bill? We shall not divide, however, as I have said, unless we can get the support of a few other Members.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question arising out of what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said on the subject of seasonal workers. In my constituency there are a considerable number of people engaged in what would be called subsidiary occupations, the growing of potatoes, brussels sprouts, onions and the like. Under the principal Act those people would be excepted from insurance, but as I read the Fifth Schedule of this Bill if they can prove that this subsidiary employment is their main means of livelihood they become insured persons. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with that point.

11.36 p.m.

Major COLFOX: In my judgment, this is a bad Bill, but it is better than no Bill at all. I do not in any sense blame the Minister for the faults of the Bill, because it was the situation in which he found himself that compelled him to produce what is so far from a perfect Measure. I do not, however, accept it as a final solution of the problem. Its chief merit in my eyes is that it represents the first attempt to tackle this difficult problem, and is laying the foundations for what, I believe, will be a very useful reform in time to come. I regard it as a bad Bill,


first, because the contributions are too high for agricultural labourers to pay. Secondly, the benefits are too low. Of course the benefits are as high as is possible under the finances of the scheme, but that merely emphasises the contention what has been rightly made from the benches opposite that the Treasury ought to have made a more generous contribution. The Treasury ought to have contributed as much per man to agricultural insurance as it does to industrial insurance.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he seriously applies himself to a problem is capable of making a very useful contribution to our Debates and I find that to a very large extent I agree with what he said on this Third Reading. That makes it all the more regrettable that he should, earlier in the evening, have indulged in pseudo-witticisms and abuse, because he is so ponderous and futile in efforts of that kind that I am led to wonder whether he and some of his friends realise how ridiculously comic they appear from the benches on this side. Another drawback of the Bill is that it includes a number of people who ought to have been left out, and leaves out a number of those who ought, in my judgment, to have been included. It should have been possible to allow individuals whose occupations are on the border line to say whether they would prefer to came within the agricultural scheme or to be included in the general industrial scheme. I do not see how we are ever likely to make a real solution of the problem of unemployment insurance for agriculture unless and until the industry has been once more reestablished on a, prosperous basis. Clearly, all the contributions which go to make up the benefits which are eventually payable must come out of the industry. It is only by restoring the industry to full prosperity that we can hope to do all that we desire, and that hon. Members on this side of the House have wished to-night, namely, to be able to bring agriculturally-insured people on to the same terms and conditions as those who are insured under the ordinary industrial scheme.
I strongly believe that our endeavour must continue to be to restore the prosperity of the industry on which these people depend. When endeavours are

made by the Government and their supporters with that object in view, they find they are defeated, or at any rate opposed, at every turn by hon. Members on the Socialist benches, who only have the interest of the urban population at heart and who either do not interest themselves in, or fail to understand, the problems of the rural community.

11.42 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: It is much too late to attempt anything like a. general review of the Bill, and I find myself able to make only four brief points. First of all I would congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted the Bill. He has shown a very admirable temper on the Second and Third Readings and on the Report stage. I was not on the Committee, but I believe was the same there. I congratulate him on getting an important Bill to this late stage.
Secondly, it must be easy for all of us to see the defects of the Bill. Many hon. Members have been pointing them out for many hours, and we are all accustomed to them, if not tired of them. It is difficult to be happy about some of these rates. I speak seriously. It is not nice to think of men having to go on to 14s. a week or of their dependants getting only 7s.; or to think of the young fellow of 18 years of age with 10s. 6d. per week, an inadequate sum to maintain him in food, let alone keep him in boots and clothes. All those things we know well. Particularly is it not nice to think of those rates when we know in our heart of hearts that they will not be supplemented by any other organisation unless it be because of illness or special hardship. It would justify a little more generosity in the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that it is 18 years now since is was first proposed, and that anybody who pays taxes in connection with agriculture has made his contribution—a by no means negligible contribution—towards the State contribution of everybody else who has been insured in industry, without, until now, getting anything back from the industry for which the payments have come.
In spite of all these difficulties, the sooner the Bill is on the Statute Book the better. Until it is on the Statute Book, and we know how it is going to work, we cannot really say what is going to happen. My right hon. Friend says


that, according to the best advice he can get, to do this would cost an extra £14,000, or to do that would cost an extra £70,000; but, with the greatest respect to him, until the Bill is working he will not know whether these figures are right or wrong. We none of us know what the scale of unemployment is going to be, and, perhaps, in three or four years time we shall not be able to recognise the Bill as the same one which we are passing to-night. Therefore, whatever our opinions may be, let us pass it, in the hope that it will work for the best, and that what we all hope for will happen, namely, an improvement in the benefit that can be given. That can only happen when we have got the figures we want, and we cannot possibly get them until we have passed the Bill itself.

11.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: At the beginning of the Debate I was not sure whether it would be necessary for me to make any winding-up remarks, but, apart from one or two specific questions that have been put, I think that some expression of opinion is necessary out of compliment to the very wide expression of opinions that we have had from many quarters of the House. I have been struck by the wide distribution of those opinions geographically. It shows that the interest in the Bill is widespread throughout Great Britain. We have had speeches from hon. Members who come from the extreme North, and we had a speech from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I remember that in the last Parliament I used to listen, from a bench behind the one on which I now sit, to the hon. Member manfully stating his arguments on numerous agricultural Measures; and, now that I am at rather closer quarters with him, I am delighted to find that his hand has lost none of its agricultural cunning. We had also a speech from Staffordshire from the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson), who drew almost idyllic pictures of dairymaids, which stirred me deeply, and, I am sure, stirred the right hon. Members on either side of me.
The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), too, with what I may call his robust ruralism, gave us one of those speeches of his to which we are always ready to listen. From the far east we

had what I think we all agree was a most delightful maiden speech from the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell). Whatever his opponents may have said about him before the Election, at all events he proved to-night that a good sportsman can be a good Parliamentarian. If I may be allowed to express a purely personal opinion, what I liked about his speech was that he did not succumb to the temptation—and it certainly is a great temptation in a maiden speech—just to deliver a set speech, but showed that he had very carefully followed the Debate, and was prepared to argue the various points which had been raised by hon. Members. I am sure that was appreciated. Hon. Members below the Gangway would agree that it is better to be noticed unfavourably than not to be noticed at all. Then we had two speeches from Members for non-agricultural districts—one from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and one from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Then we went further south, via Hampshire and Dorset, until we closed, appropriately enough, with the last speech almost literally from Land's End.
I think we must all admit that this Bill is a beginning on substantially the right lines, and I agree with the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), let us get it on the Statute Book as quickly as we can, and the test then will be to see how it will work. I think that is the almost universal feeling in the House. The hon. Member for Brigg denounced a good many of the provisions of the Bill. When I hear hon. Members saying what terribly hard times people will have under the scales in this Measure, I wonder that they did not starve to death long before the Bill was talked about. Eventually he was honest enough to say that the Bill we are going to have is a great deal better than the nothing which we had before. The same was true of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who, after a denunciation of the Bill, became a Parliamentary Balaam and said that those best qualified to know, the agricultural workers, felt it would give them great benefit. Two substantial points were raised during the discussion. One was by the hon. Member for Gorbals regarding the seasonal workers. It was a point which we had not overlooked. It is true that as the


Bill stands the Seasonal Workers Order does apply. The Statutory Committee said that the Order is unsuitable for agriculture, and recommended that the ratio rule should take its place. It would be inappropriate to deal with that in this Bill, but it will be necessary to amend the Order before November, when the scheme comes into operation. My right hon. Friend has power to do that under the principal Act, and on his behalf I can give an undertaking that it will be done. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked a question rather on the same lines. I have already partly answered him. The remainder of the answer is contained in an amendment in the Fifth Schedule. It is within the province of the Minister to make regulations bringing in people whose main employment is of the nature which the hon. Member has in mind.
In a few minutes I hope this Bill will have passed successfully the final stage in this House. I hope that in a short time it will have completed its Parliamentary life and have become an Act. It will then be committed to the countryside of Great Britain, and in my opinion it could

be committed to no better tribunal. Rural England is not the unchanging, unimaginative, slow thing that people very often think. To my mind its main characteristic is its absorbent capacity. Throughout the centuries people, processes, and ideas have very often come into the countryside, and rural England has moulded, adapted and modified them and finally incorporated them successfully into that life of its own which never dies. That is what rural England will do with this Bill to its great advantage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-post Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'Clock.